Tilak, Sedition and a Few Lessons

Context:  Bal Gangadhar Tilak’s trials for sedition demonstrate how the judicial system was misused to silence the voice of freedom.

Circumstances Leading to First Trial for Sedition 

• Kesari newspaper’s: criticism over collection of land tax even during a famine (1896) and for not implementing the Famine Relief Code. 
• Rising resentment in Indians against British officials: due to 
• Repressive measures by Walter Charles Rand for curbing the spread of for Bubonic plague struck in Pune (1897).
• Desecration of places of worship increased resentment.
• Killing of Rand by Damodar Chaphekar, who was convicted and hanged. 
• Tilak’s articles condemning the brutality: of the British officer’s measures and his justification over the killing of Afzal Khan by Shivaji (became foundation of a case of sedition).
• On July 27, 1897, Tilak was arrested and tried for sedition before the Bombay High Court. 
• Strachey’s ambiguous and flawed interpretation of “disaffection” : i.e “the absence of affection”.

Circumstances Leading Second Trial for Sedition

• The Anglo-Indian press attacked Tilak for provoking the youth to engage in violent protests (killing of English women by Khudiram Bose)
• Tilak through Kesari has asked government to stop repressing freedom and grant self-rule to the people of India and, in one article, criticised the Explosives Act. 
• Once again, Tilak was arrested in June 1908 and charged with sedition.
• Tilak argued his own case and pointed out that the English translation of his articles had serious errors and asked for a correct version, but this plea was rejected. 
• Initially, M A Jinnah appeared for Tilak and applied for bail, but this was rejected by Justice Davar
• Tilak was sent to Mandalay jail in Burma and returned in 1914. 
• Justice Davar’s verdict was criticized by several newspapers in England.
• There was no explanation for the exclusion of several Marathi-speaking Hindus from the High Court’s jury panel.

Conclusion

• Tilak’s imprisonment by invoking the law of sedition failed to suppress the freedom struggle. 
• The two trials teach us useful lessons in dealing with public protests.
• Suppressing widespread dissent or criticism has always proved counterproductive.