13. Tilak’s Nationalism and Swaraj Shri Prakash Singh – Indian Political Thought, 2nd Edition


Tilak’s Nationalism and Swaraj

Shri Prakash Singh

Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920), the ‘Lokmanya’, the Extremist and the Home Rule Leaguer has been interpreted differently by his contemporaries and successors at different stages of history. Engaged in the anti-colonial movement and in social reforms, he was the only mass leader in the pre-Gandhi era of Indian politics who effectively mobilized the masses. His technique of mass mobilization was so effective that Gandhi adopted it with partial modification. His political stature was such that the Moderates, the Gandhians, the social reformers, the Dalits, the Communists and the Colonial Administrators looked at him with awe despite serious political differences with him.

His work began with two primary engagements: one, with the nationalist agenda, against the colonial regime, and secondly, with the issues of labouring masses, of peasantry and labour. His very early writings in the Mahratta1 and in Kesari whose motto was ‘I would prefer death to dishonour’ reflect this fact. Since January 1881, when he began to edit and contribute to it or the articles which were selected from the foreign journals for their reprint in it with prefix, Tilak focused on the two themes referred above. Through the Leisure Hour or Radical, the English journals, he focused on the condition of agriculturalindustrial labour, on the meaning of labour and wealth, on explaining the class conflict and on building up nationalism against colonial oppression. For him, the primary contradiction was between the British and the Indians. The contradictions between the Indian labour and the Indian capital, between the Indian landlord and Indian peasantry and between the Indian male dominance and Indian women subjugation were secondary. To mobilize and unite the Indians across these divisions was his primary objective. Therefore, all the reformative and legislative measures initiated from the colonial state were anathema to him as these measures were premised on their interest and were designed to shift the focus from the primary contradictions to secondary contradictions, to dilute the struggle and anger of the Indians against the British.

Tilak was also anathematic to Moderate’s method of mendicancy appealing to the British to grant political and social reforms to Indians or requesting them to govern the Indians in a truly British principle of liberalism. He, on the contrary, focused on regenerating, reawakening the Indians to compel the British to leave India or to transfer power within the dominion. Anything that came in the way of stated objective of transfer of political power or for its national mobilization was brushed aside. He knew that the requirements of social reforms are important but these were not very urgent political prerequisite for transfer of power. Therefore, a section of contemporary historians2 argued against him as a social reactionary siding with the conservative sections of the society. His praxis, however, was premised on the priority of nationalism which was intended to get the political-constitutional power for Indians from the British. The opposition to Factories Act of 1881, the critique of Ramabai or opposition to raising the marriage age of Indians girls had, therefore, emanated from this priority. This also led him to a political-communal compromise with the Muslim League that sanctified the constitutional formation of separate electorate which the Moderate Congress was opposed to from the beginning. The communal compromise with the League, in fact, stalled or obstructed the future of social reforms among the Muslims and strengthened their religiosity. The idea, then, however, was to consolidate one national block against the British for the Home Rule which was fragmented due to religious divide. Tilak was expecting a certain level of substantive political-constitutional autonomy in the post war India. Therefore, he had also agreed to the demand of a federal India premised on different linguistic provinces.

Tilak did not share his predecessor’s faith in the British sense of justice and fair play and differed with most of their beliefs and praxis. He transcended the agenda of social reforms, education or of the politics of mendicancy. He was keen to reawaken the public against the alien rule itself. He expressed his agenda of Swaraj in the press. The two news papers, Kesari and Mahratta printed his agenda in 1881. To inject the spirit of nationalism and awareness among the people, he started the Ganapati Puja and Shivaji Mahotsva in 1896. These festivals were instrumental in bringing people together culturally irrespective of their caste and creed. He believed that independence is the foremost necessity for the well being of a nation and of its people. In India, he was perhaps the first leader to understand the importance of mass support and subsequently became the first mass leader of India. He realized that the constitutional agitation in itself have been futile against the colonial rule but did not venture with the revolution. He created and marshaled the extremist wing of the Indian National Congress which he joined in 1889. His movement was based on the principles of Swadeshi (reliance on indigenous products), Boycott and Education.

Believing that imparting of education is the best policy to serve the nation and its people, he and his friend Gopal Ganesh Agarkar who became the Principal of Ferguson College, decided to devote their lives to the cause of education. To impart affordable and healthy education3 to the younger generation, they established the New English School at Pune, in 1881, and Deccan Society in 1885. They started their carrier as school teachers. However, Tilak felt that only educating young generation was not enough and that the elderly people also needed to be exposed to the socio-political and economic realities of the Indian society and hence started two weeklies Mahratta and Kesari in English and Marathi respectively. For Tilak, enriching the Indian society and its cultural values was only possible with the development of an education. Tilak had great respect and love for Indian civilization. He analyzed the situation of the country and concluded that the freedom of the nation cannot be achieved without the active support of the masses. In order to enthuse the masses to participate in the ongoing freedom struggle actively it was essential to revive their pride in the glorious past of the country and make them aware of the misdeeds of the foreign rule. Ganpati and Shivaji Mahotsava became highly successful in this regard and became a mile stone in the history of our freedom movement.

Tilak was the first political leader to break through the routine of its somewhat academic methods, to bridge the gulf between the present and the past and to restore continuity to the political life of the nation. He developed a language and a spirit and used methods which Indianized the movement. Tilak had no faith in the constitutional method adopted by Gokhle and others to achieve their goal. He pointed out that the constitutional method might be very appropriate in a country like Britain where there is a constitution and a responsible government for the public. But it was totally inapplicable to a country like India where the Penal Code is the constitution and the people have no democratic means to change the government. He asserted that India could not base their agitation on law because the law could be changed by the irresponsible and autocratic government at any point of time and in any manner the state may like.

About the ineffectiveness of the constitutional method he wrote in Kesari, “We will get nothing by appealing to or shouting hoarse in the ears of the British bureaucracy in India. It is like breaking our heads against a stone wall”. He was of the opinion that the British government is unresponsive to the demands of the Congress leaders because it was convinced that they could ‘only bark and had no teeth to bite’. Thus he adopted a method of agitation which must hurt the British government.

His second engagement, the mobilization of the masses — the peasantry and the labourers — to compel the British to cede power to the Indians was equally an important part of his political praxis. Without this mass pressure there was no hope of achieving Home Rule. Tilak knew that mendicancy wouldn’t yield any substantive result. Therefore, he used two mediums for political mobilization: first, newspapers for mass communications and political education, and second, cultural idioms for mobilization. Tilak also used the colonial state’s engagements with social reforms in the private domains of Indian families with the support of social reformers against colonialism for nationalist mobilization. He was not against reforms but used the anger of the masses against the outsider’s interference in the nationalist domain. The private was converted into the political that effectively drew the subjects into the vortex of politics and widened the political base of the nationalist. It also converted the religious, the sacred, into political zealots who, in turn, secularized the traditional by reinterpreting the past from the modern perspectives.

Tilak’s support to the Indian labour and business reflects his preference for the nation first against the colonial state. His opposition to the Factory Acts, 1881 and 1891 and his support to the Signaller’s Associations of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway in 1899 reflect his stand. In 1906, he supported the Postal Peon strike and in 1907–08 the labour rallies in Bombay. His works for the development of a united block of Indian nationalism by the second decade of the twentieth century against the colonial rule transcending the class, religion, and nationality divide reflects his success. The beginning of formation of a pan-Indian business house (later to be named Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry), the agreement between Indian Muslims League and the Congress (Lucknow Pact) and the agreement for a federal India comprising of linguistic provinces were the premises of his building blocks which were ably supported by the labour and peasants. The success of Ganpati and Shivaji festivals, the popular support against the Age of Consent Bill, the Indian business support against the Factory Acts, the strike of labour against his jail term and against sending him to Mandalay reflects the popular support that he commanded.

His proposal for social reforms was equally popular. He had advocated “the minimum marriageable age of sixteen and twenty, respectively, for girls and boys, remarriage of widows and remarriage of men was to be opposed; thus men should not marry after forty and if they did, only widows; the disfigurement of widows had to be stopped, dowry was to be prohibited; liquor was to banned; and one-fourth of the monthly salary of every social reformer was to be given for public purposes and philanthropic activities”.4 The idea was to strike hard at the roots of the social evils and to contribute to the growth of national consciousness. He cited ancient texts in his support.

Tilak and Social Reforms

Tilak’s reinterpretation of Gita (Gita Rahasya) and the contextualization of its meaning in the political sphere energized the politics of his time. In Maharashtra, especially in those days there was a greater emphasis on social reforms, to integrate the Hindu society, to remove untouchability and to liberate women from bondage. Tilak was of the opinion that “political freedom should precede social reforms” which clashed with Gokhle and Agarkar’s policy who believed that social reforms was equally, if not more, necessary than political reforms.5 Tilak apprehended that the masses may get delineated from the Congress if the Congress supported the social reform. He claimed that those who thought like him wished to draw more people to the Congress whereas others did not wish to go much beyond the circle of social reformers. The real point at issue he said, “is whether the Congress is to be a Congress of the people or a particular section of it”.6 Aurobindo Ghose appreciatively said that Tilak did not want the nation to split itself into warring factions by a premature association of the social reform question with parties.7 Tilak was not opposed to social reforms. In 1890, Tilak and Ranade both supported “the female education and raising of the age of marriage for girls and boys”.8 But gradually differences developed between them. And in 1895 Tilak opposed the reformist social conference being allowed to use the pavilion of the Indian National Congress. Some Extremists even threatened to burn the Congress pandal, if the Congress allowed it to be used by social conference. Tilak’s views on social reforms were different from those of Moderates like Ranade and others. To Tilak, the imperative demand was of political progress; social questions could be discussed later or the social changes could be introduced subsequently. But the bureaucracy in India sided with the Moderates on the question of social reforms. Sir Auckland Colvin, Lieutenant-Governor of the North–Western province, wrote to Hume, “What I think people fear is that the people of India will find it infinitely more agreeable to clamour for peace and power to scramble for the leaves and dive for the fishes, than to impose upon themselves the rigorous discipline of reform”.9 In response, Hume criticized those who were “fatuous enough to urge it as a reproach that the Congress does not directly meddle with social question” and he said that anyone “who should endeavor to work out the delicate and intricate question of social reform by the aid of the rough and ready engine of the National political Congress would be as foolish as someone who sought to use a plough as a vehicle of transportation”.10

In 1888, the social reformers in Pune proposed co-educational system for boys and girls in schools and colleges. Tilak suggested that as women had to perform house hold activities, their curricular must be different from the men, hence, there may be separate schools and colleges for the girls and boys. At the fourth social conference held in Calcutta in December, 1890, R. N. Mundholkar moved a resolution condemning child marriage and advocating adult marriage. Tilak supported the resolution. He also attended the fifth social conference held at Nagpur in 1891 under the Presidentship of G. S. Khaparde. A resolution was introduced advocating the remarriage of widows and it exhorted the people to join the movement. Tilak supported it and also moved an amendment suggesting that the sympathizers of the movement of widow remarriage should not merely attend celebrating the marriage, but should also demonstrate their sincerity by participating in the marriage feast.

Earlier, he had protested strongly in 1891 and in 1918 against the introduction of the ‘Age of Consent Bill’ which had sought to raise the age of marriage from 10 to 12 years. On 9th January 1891, the Age of Consent Bill was formally introduced in the imperial legislative council at Calcutta. Ramesh Chandra Mitter strongly opposed the bill. The Viceroy, Lansdowne, pointed out however, that the proposed bill did not go against the proclamation of 1858 of Queen Victoria. On 20th January, Tilak wrote an article in Kesari and argued that the proposed bill was bound to interfere in Hindu religious practices, and hence the people were exhorted to oppose the passage of the bill. In spite of Tilak’s strong opposition the bill was passed.

Tilak was opposed to the conversion of Hindu women to Christianity. But he was not opposed to the imparting of secular education. Tilak had been apprehensive about the missionaries’ intentions of conversion since 1885; but he was never opposed to the female education and to the emancipation of widows. He was, however, not reconciled to the role of Christian conversion carried on by subtle means.

Tilak was definitely opposed to social change on Western pattern, but he was not opposed to the social reforms per se according to the norms and demands of the Indian society of the time. He was of the opinion that social advancement was not the pre-requisite criteria for political emancipation. Hence, he stated that a prime need of the hour was to focus our energy for the attainment of political rights. Social reforms would follow once the political rights had been obtained.

He was of the opinion that the socially determined reforms should be introduced gradually through a process of education. Tilak was opposed to untouchability. He tried to eradicate this problem through religious celebrations as in the Ganpati festival. The lower caste people were allowed to take their statues of the god Ganesha in procession along with the statues belonging to the higher castes which abridged the social division. Addressing the first conference of the depressed classes on 25th March 1918, in Bombay, he had said that all Indians were children of the same motherland; there could be no spiritual and moral defense of untouchability and reiterated that “if God were to tolerate untouchability, I would not recognize him as God at all”.11

Some critics have described him as conservative because he was opposed to remarriage of widows and intermarriage among the caste. But it is contrary to his position as he had supported the widow remarriage. He believed in organic and gradual growth in matters of social change through Swaraj, Swadeshi and National Education. Tilak generally stood for the reforms emerging from within the womb of Indian tradition and social, religious system as against westernizing tendencies of social reformers like Ranade and Agarkar.

Political Philosophy

Tilak was a protagonist of Indian nationalism, a prophet of resurrection of India as a nation. To V.P Varma, Tilak’s political philosophy has its roots both in Indian tradition as well as in some of the currents of contemporary western political and legal thought.

His main concern was the political emancipation of India and hence there is an element of great realism in his political ideas and outlook. He was a political pragmatist. His political thought represents a synthesis of some of the dominant conception of Indian thought and the nationalistic and democratic ideas of the modern west. He was a Vedantist, which taught him the supremacy of the concept of freedom. To him, “freedom was the soul of the home rule movement”.12 The divine instinct of freedom never aged…Freedom is the very life of the individual soul, which Vedanta declares is to be not separate from God but identical with him. This freedom was a principle that could never perish.13 For him, freedom was a divine attribute. Freedom was equaled with the autonomous power of creativism, and without freedom no moral and spiritual life was possible.


Tilak’s idea of nationalism was a social transformative in content and in orientation. He wanted to bring to the forefront the message of the Vedas and of Gita for providing spiritual energy and moral enthusiasm to the nation. According to him, a recovery of the healthy and vital traditions of the old culture of India was essential. A true nationalist desires to build on old foundation. Reforms based on an utter disrespect for the old norms did not appeal to him as constructive work. He said that we do not want to anglicize our institutions and to denationalize them in the name of social and political reforms.14 M.N. Roy pointed out that Shivaji and Ganpati festivals were encouraged by Tilak to link contemporary events and movements with historical traditions.15

Because of his realistic approach, Tilak regarded that Swarajya was not only a right but a Dharma.16 He also gave a moral and spiritual meaning of Swarajya. Politically, Swarajya meant Home Rule. Morally, it meant the attainment of the perfection of self control, which is essential for performing “one’s duty” (Swadharma). It also had a spiritual significance because it meant the realization of spiritual inner freedom and contemplative delight. Tilak wanted both political and spiritual freedom. This synthesis was expressed as Swarajya, a Vedantic term, which was used in Maharashtra to indicate the Maratha policy of Shivaji.17 According to Tilak, nationalism was not a visible and concrete entity but was a kind of sentiment and idea, and in generating this idea the historical memories of the great figure of a country play a significant part. It was thus also a psychological conception. He rightly felt that the roots of Indian nationalism must lie not in the mere intellectual appeals to the theories of the western liberal writers but in the sentiments and emotions of the Indian masses. He felt that the memories of Shivaji would serve to reinvigorate nationalistic emotions of the common people. Shivaji became the symbol of resistance of the people against oppression and injustice. Tilak tried several times to refute the charges of anti Islam labeled against this festival. He pointed out that the idea was to mobilize and lift the spirits of the people. On the Bengal partition day, Tilak said that both Hindus and Muslims should assert their rights against the bureaucracy that was trying to crush them all.

Tilak focused on the local cultural resources. He was not a Hindu nationalist or was opposed to Muslims as a British historian J.C Powell Price had once argued. A spectre of fear was prevalent among Muslims that the demand of Swarajya by Tilak would lead to Hindu domination. The colonial state used this fear of Muslims to raise Muslim League to counter Congress and create a separate electorate.18 Or the Muslim League was created as an answer to the Indian National Congress as it was necessitated because of possibility of fear of self-government which, in turn, raised the spirit of separation and for all this, the intolerance of Tilak was emphasized. Zacharias says that “Tilak was the spokesman of anti-Muslim retaliation”.19 Chirol says that due to Tilak’s extreme orthodoxy the Muslim members of the Poona Sarvajanik Sabha resigned from the body.20 Rajni Palme Dutt blames Tilak and Aurobindo because their identification with national awakening and revival of Hinduism led to Muslim separatism from the national movement.21 But these are partial or incorrect interpretations of the political acts of Lokmanya. Jinnah, Ansari, and Hasan Imam had praised the nationalistic sentiments and spirit of compromise of Tilak. It was due to his wise counsel and moderation that Lucknow Pact of 1916 could be achieved. Shaukat Ali and Hasarat Mohani regarded Tilak as their political Guru. Shaukat Ali says, “I would like to mention again for the hundredth time that both Mohammad Ali and myself belonged to and still belong to Lokmanya Tilak’s political party.”22

Hasrat Mohani says, “Even at that early age, I chose the Lokmanya as the ideal Leader for me… During that period I had ample opportunities of appreciating the thought and ability of almost all Indian political leaders and basing my remarks on that close personal study. I can state that without the least fear of contradiction, that I found the Lokmanya greater and superior to every other leader in every respect… when I declare that all through Tilak’s life I was both intellectually and practically a blind follower of his, anyone can well judge thereby of that love that I cherished towards him.”23 Hasan Imam as the President of the Bombay special Congress went to the extent of calling Tilak his father in Indian politics.24 Imam stated that, “let me say, and it is with great pride that Lokmanya Tilak is my father in point of politics”.25 Furthermore, Tilak had promised to support the Khilafat movement if the majority of the Muslim were behind it. Tilak had also proposed a Congress resolution for the release of Ali brothers.26 Support and admiration of these great Muslim leaders signify that Tilak was not anti Muslim.

Tilak wanted to substantiate the national movement in India with a strong cultural and religious regeneration of society. Along with it, he also accepted the economic arguments for nationalism.27 Dadabhai Naroji made famous the ‘Drain theory’ in Indian economy. Both Tilak and Gokhale accepted that the foreign imperialism resulted in the enormous ‘drain’ of India’s resources. In 1897, Tilak wrote three articles in Kesari at the time of Diamond Jubilee Celebration of Queen Victoria on 22nd June. He stated that India’s art and industries had declined under the British rule. The various economic enterprises and investment in India, of the foreign capitalists only created a delusion of prosperity.28 He referred to the evidence given by Dadabhai before the Welby Commission.29 He also emphasized the economic dimension of the Swadeshi movement, which indicates his awareness of the economic roots of Indian nationalism. The Swadeshi movement in India assumed a spiritual and a political character. It became a movement for the liberation of the nation, for political emancipation of the land. In a speech in January 1907 at Allahabad, Tilak pleaded for a protective tariff of our own by the boycott of foreign goods. “The salvation of the country could be attained not by waiting on the bureaucracy and sending petitions to them containing appeals to logic and reason but only by the concerted efforts of the people themselves.” He, therefore, exhorted the nation to work for the concrete realization of the resolutions on Swadeshi, Boycott and National Education which had been passed at the Congress session of 1906 at Calcutta.

Tilak held that attainment of Swarajya would be a great victory for Indian nationalism. Hence, he gave the mantra “Swarajya is the birth right of Indians.” Although in his speeches and writings Lokmanya always said that Swarajya did not imply the negation and severance from the British sovereignty.30 But in his heart of hearts, he always wanted complete independence. He once wrote that Swarajya is “the foundation and not the height of our future prosperity.”31 He always pointed out that the path of the attainment of Swarajya was full of suffering and misery.32 During the Home Rule days Tilak was always careful to say that he was not opposed to the king-emperor but he wanted to change the Anglo-Indian bureaucracy. Bipin Chandra Pal has described “Tilak as a believer in Imperial Federation which would be composed of Great Britain, Ireland and Egypt, India and the dominions, each absolutely autonomous internally but combined for the purposes of protection and progress.33

Concept of Swarajya

The word Swarajya is an old Vedic term and in Tilak’s understanding Swarajya was a moral necessity.34 For Tilak, swaraj was not only the birth right of every Indian but a dharma, a duty. It was “a life centered in self and dependent upon self. It meant self control and inner spiritual freedom. But such spiritual freedom was possible only if there was political freedom.”35 In the course of time, Tilak studied the different issues agitating the minds of the people. He saw clearly the inherent contradiction between the economic interests of Britain and India. He realized that the administrative weaknesses, the political injustice and the political exploitation from which India suffered could be remedied not by an appeal to the good sense of the British people but only by making the Indian administration responsive to Indian public opinion. He placed before his countrymen the objective of Swaraj36 that is defining Swaraj as the right of the people to conduct the administration of the country, according to what they consider to be their good.

Swaraj might mean government by rulers belonging to the same country, religion or caste as the ruled. It was desirable in itself. This was the least important aspect of Swaraj. If the government is really responsible to the governed foreign king or a few foreign administrators would mean no harm except for a small outflow of income from the country. What is more essential is that the government should be a good government, a government based on peace, order and rule of law. The word Swaraj essentially means a constitutional government, a government which rules according to the wishes of the people, of their representatives.37 Essentially, it was the realization of self; and for it, a self perpetuating, self generating social, political conditions where required. To develop it or to institute it, political freedom was the pre-requisite.


Tilak was one of the leaders who asserted himself since the beginning of 1881 to argue for India’s right to swaraj or national self determination. The idea was to foster strong feeling of patriotism and self respect among the Indians by moulding the public opinion and by bringing pressure to bear on the British authorities for granting political rights. He focused his efforts throughout his life for the attainment of this single goal. But also, he played significant role in establishing Poona New English School in 1880, apart from the Deccan Education Society and the Fergusson College. During the days of the Swadeshi Movement, he was the prime leader, mover and also patron of the Samartha Vidyalaya. As a fighter against economic injustice, he played an important role in making the people conscious of their rights during the famine of 1896. He was opposed to any kind of economic discriminations and moved an important resolution pertaining to the economic affairs from the nationalist platforms such as the resolution on permanent settlement, decentralization of finances, etc. Swadeshi movement and its cult is closely associated with Tilak.

He was the first leader of the Indian National Congress to be incarnated for his political writings. Valentine Chirol, the British journalist, aptly expressed the reactions of the rulers when he called Tilak, “the father of Indian unrest”. During the trial of Tilak in 1908, the prosecution counsel argued that Tilak’s articles contained a “covert threat of mutiny” and that his real message was “Swaraj or Bomb”. The way Tilak nurtured the values and feelings for nationalism in the poor folks of the country went a long way in reinforcing the struggle for independence whose fruits were actually obtained in 1947, much after the death of Tilak. Yet, when the country became independent, in the galaxy of Indian leaders whose mammoth efforts lay at the root of independence of the country, Tilak will remain inked in indelible mark. Therefore, Gandhi described Tilak as the maker of the modern India and Nehru paid his tribute as father of Indian Revolution.

Notes and References

  1. Mahratta, Supplementary, 2nd January 1881.
  2. See Parimala V. Rao, “Religious Identity and Conflict in the Nationalist Agenda of Bal Gangadhar Tilak” and Biswamoy Pati, “Nationalist Politics and the ‘Making’ of Bal Gangadhar Tilak” in Biswamoy Pati (ed.), Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Primus, Delhi, 2011.
  3. N.C. Kelkar, Life and Times of Lokmanya Tilak, Radha Publications, Delhi, 1957, p. 17.
  4. Biswamoy Pati, op. cit., p. 98.
  5. Shankar Ghose, Modern Indian Political Thought, Allied Publishers, New Delhi, 1984, p. 81.
  6. Ram Gopal, Lokmanya Tilak, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1956, p. 112.
  7. B.G. Tilak, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, His Writings and Speeches: Appreciation by Babu Aurobindo Ghose, Fb & C Limited, London, 2015, p. 14–15.
  8. Source Material for a History of Freedom Movement in India Vol. II. (1885–1920), Government of India, Bangalore, 1958, p. 201.
  9. Allan Octavian Hume and A. Colvin, Audi Alteram Partem, London, 1888, p. 20.
  10. A.O. Hume, A Speech on the Indian National Congress, its origins, aims and objects: Delivered at Allahabad, 1888, Ames Library, Pamphlet collection, Iowa, USA, p. 3.
  11. V.P. Varma, Modern Indian Political Thought, Laxmi Narayan Aggarwal, Agra, 1961, p. 191.
  12. B.G. Tilak, Geeta Rahasya (Hindi edition) cited in Verinder Grover (ed.) Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Deep & Deep Publications, Delhi, 1990, p. 399.
  13. Ibid., p. 399.
  14. Tilak’s letters, Mahratta, 13th December, 1919.
  15. M.N. Roy, India in Transition, Wentworth Press, Geneva, 1922, p. 14.
  16. B.G. Tilak, Speeches and Writings of Bal Gangadhar Tilak, G.A. Natesan & Co., Madras, 1920, p. 256.
  17. V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19, No. 9, January-March 1958, pp. 15–16.
  18. J.C. Powell Price, A History of India, Thomas Nelson and Son, p. 599.
  19. H.C.E. Zacharias, Renascent India from Rammohan Roy to Mohandas Gandhi (1772–1930), Read Books, Vancouver, p. 121.
  20. V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 16.
  21. R.P. Dutt., India Today, People’s Publishing House, New Delhi, 1949, p. 383.
  22. S.V. Bapat(ed.), The Reminiscences and the Anecdotes of Lokmanya Tilak, Vol. II, Poona, p. 576.
  23. Ibid., Vol. III, pp. 36–37.
  24. Cited in V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 17.
  25. S.V. Bapat(ed.), p. 218.
  26. Cited in V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 17.
  27. M.N. Roy, op. cit., p. 165.
  28. Cited in V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 17.
  29. Welby Commission (Chairman, Lord Welby) Report, 1900, pp. 181–82.
  30. V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 17.
  31. B.G. Tilak, Speeches and Writings of Tilak, op. cit., p. 278.
  32. V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. pp. 17–18.
  33. B.C. Pal., The Spirit of Indian Nationalism, London, Chap. ‘Tilak’; also cited in V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 18.
  34. T.L. Shay, Legacy of Lokmanya, Oxford University Press, Bombay, 1966, p. 215.
  35. Cited in V.P. Varma, ‘Political Philosophy of Lokamanya Tilak’, op. cit. p. 16.
  36. B.G. Tilak, writings from Kesari (in Marathi) Vol. III, p. 177.
  37. Ibid., p. 174.