tilak trial of 1908

File1-Tilak Trial

TILAK TRIAL.

(1908.)

ONLY AUTHORISED

VERBATIM ACCOUNT OF THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS WITHINTRODUCTION AND CHARACTER SKETCH OF

Bal Gangadhar TilakTogether with PRESS OPINION.

Published byN. C. KELKAR B. A,, LL. B. - c c>.Editoh, The Mahratta

; ;jMIVERSrrY j September 1908.

Printed atThe Indu-Prakash Steam Press, BOMBAY.

The Tilak Case.

MBaaMi«=a^

File1-Tilak Trial

CONTENTS.

pages.Preface

Character Sketch of Mr, Tilak , 1 — 17

Introduction ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 — 12

Magisterial Proceedings , 1 — 10

Bail Proceedings 11 — 18

Special Jury application proceedings ... ... ......18 — 22

Sessions proceedings : —

Preliminary .,, ^ c 23 — 31

Mr. Inverarity's opening address 32 — 36

Evidence for the Prosecution ... ... .... ...36—69

Mr. Tilak's Statement , 69—72

Mr. Tilak's speech 72 — 168

The Advocate General's ( Mr. Branson's reply )169—200

The Judge's Summing up ... ... ... 1 — 14

Verdict and Sentence 15 — 19

File1-Tilak TrialJudge's notes in the case • 20—37

The High Court Appeal proceedings : —

Mr. Tilak's petition of appeal to the Pull Bench ...38 — ^9

Preliininary Hearing ^ «^ 50 — 7^!

Final Hearing 75—93

The High Court Judgment ... 99-103

Prosecution Exhibits (A to M 2) 1— 63

Defence Exhibits ( Dl to D 71 ) 69—120

Press opinion on the Tilak Case : —

English opinion 121-127

Indian opinion 127-140

200703

PREfflCE.

I need, I think, make no apology for presenting this

File1-Tilak Trialfull and authenticaccount of the TUak trial to the public. The case isof course one of greatimportance from the point of view of Mr. Tilakhimself; but it is perhapseven more important from the point of view of theIndian public. The recordin the case is bound to take rank as a part andparcel of the constitutionalhistory of India in the beginning of the 20thcenturv". While the trial wasgoing on at Bombay there was hardly anything thatwas being talked ofmore than its proceedings throughout the length andbreadth of the coun-try. And since its termination the appearance of anumber of more orless incomplete accounts of the case in variouslanguages has testified tothe fact that the people would very much like to behelped with the meansof keeping an accurate memory of the great StateTrial which had cut aniche in their mind. The present account of theproceedings, beingprepared from short-hand notes and embodying all thepapers and docu-ments used in the case, wiU, it is hoped, serve thatpurpose to some extent,

I must acknowledge my thanks to those workers whovoluntarily andcheerfully helped me in my work. I must also thankthe men of the InduPrakash Press for their loyal co-operation.

I am painfully conscious of the typographical errorswhich have suc-

File1-Tilak Trialcessfully avoided the corrector's vigilant eye. Butthe book had to bebrought out within what was in effect a 'time-Hmit ;' and the reader would,it is hoped, forgive those errors in considerationof the high pressure underwhich the whole work had to be done.

Bombay, 15th September 1908. N. C, KklkarT

NIVERSiTY

Or THE

Zh^ Character Sketch

OF

IMP. Bal Gangadhap Tilak, B.fl., hh. 6.

Mr. Tilak belongs to a race that has already made amark in theMaratha history. He is a Chitpava7i Brahmin, and wasborn at Ratna^irion 23rd July 1856. His father, Mr, GangadharRamchandra Tilak, was atfirst an Assistant Teacher at Ratnagiri and thenAssistant Deputy Educa-

File1-Tilak Trialtional Inspector at Thana and Poona. Gangadharpantwas a very popularteacher of his time, and had published works onTriguometr\- and Gram-mar. He did not, however, live long to superintendthe education of hisson. By the death of his father in August 1872 youngBal was left anorphan at the age of 16. He was, however, able tocontinue his studies withoutinterruption and passed the Matriculation fourmonths after his father'sdeath. He joined the Deccan College, passed the B.A. with honours in1876, and took the degree of Iona New EngHsh Schoolon 2nd January 1880. Mr^V.S. Apte M A. jj-lned them in June and Mr. Agarkarat the end of the yearafter passing his M A. The five men did not confinetheir activity to theSchool alone. Simnltaneously with the School, twonewspapers the Mahrattaand the Kesarr^ were started, and they at once madetheir mark in the€eld of Native journalism. Mr, Vishnu ShastriChiplunkar also established

2

two printiut^ presses, the Arya-Bhtishan for the useof the two news--papers, and the Chitrashala for the purpose ofencouraging fine arts. Withtliese various undertakings the five men had enoughto do for some time,and they pushed these on manfully. The New English

File1-Tilak TrialSchool soon attainedthe first rank among the Poona schools ; the Kesariand the Marhattabecame the leading papers in the Deccan.

This band of patriotic workers, however, had soon topass through anordeal. TheAV5^r/and the Mahratta published somearticles severel>criticising the treatment given to H. H. Shivajirao,the late Maharaja ofKolhapur, and the then Karbhari of the State Mr, M,W. Barve, conse-quently prosecuted Mr. Tilak and Mr. Agarkar aseditors of the Mahrattaand the Kesari respectovely for defamation. To addto the troubles, while,the case was pending Mr. V. K. Chiplnnkar died, andsoon after:his death Messesrs. Tilak and Agarkar were convictedand sentenced to simpleimprisonment for four months. The Kolhapur trialonly served to increasethe popularity of the School and the two papers.Willing assistance came fromall sides. After Mr. Chiplunkar's death, Mr. Tilakwas, for a long time-the guiding spirit and Mr. Namjoshi the activemember of this smallband. In the latter part of 1884 they resolved togive themselves a statu-tory^ existence, and with that view they formed theDeccan EducationSociety of Poona, with themselves as its first bodyof life-members. The\were soon joined by the late Professor V. B. Kelkar,Professor Dharap, andProfessor M. S. Gole, while later on came Prof.

File1-Tilak TrialGokhale, Prof. Bhanu,and also Prof. Patankar. In 1885 the FergussouCollege was eatablished;tinder the auspices of the Deccan Education Society,and all the life-members agreed to serve in it as Professors for 20years. The Society'sinstitutions soon became prosperous. They purchasedthe Gadre Wada andthe Knabutarkhana play — ground. The Nana Wada waslater on handed,over to them by Lord Reay in accordance with apromise of Sir JamesFergusson's Government and they erected a splendidstructure near theChaturshingi for the accommodation of the College.Mr. Tilak's connectionwith the School and College, however, ceased in1890. The causes thatbrought about this disruption were many and various,and this is not theplace to go into them. The process of disintegrationhad, in fact, begunlong before. The Chitrashala had become anindependent concern evenin- the life-time of Vishnu Shastri. About the year1888 differences of opinionon social and religious questions between Mr. Tilakand Mr. Agarkar led tothe latter's resigning his editorship of the Kesariand starting a pape. of hisown, the Sudharak. It was then found that theinterests of the School andthe College could not be identical with those of thepapers, and so a partitionwas effected by which the A ry a- B h 7i slia nViess and the two papers became the

File1-Tilak Trial

private property of Mr.Tilak, Professor Kelkar, andone Mr. H.N.Gokhale,Professor Kelkar being the editor iu charge of thetwo papers. This stateof things lasted till the end of 1890, and mighthave continued indefinitelyif fresh differences had not tended to increase thernptiire. The differenceschiefly related to the principles which shouldregulate the conduct of the life-members and the management of the School, and werebrought to ahead by.Professor Gokhale's appointment to theSecretaryship of the Poona•Sarvajanik Sabha in 1889. Mr. Tilak was from thefirst strongly in-favour of a Jesuitical mode of life, and insistedupon an absolute rule thatlife-members should devote all their time and energyto their proper functionas teachers. The majorty of his colleagues, however,did not agree withhim, and .consequently he severed his connectionwith the Society bysending in his resignation in November 1890. As aProfessor, Mr. Tilak wasvery- popular. He was permanent Professor ofMathematics, but he alsoacted at intervals as Professor of Sanskrit andScience. Originality audthoroughness was his motto; and whatever was thesubject he took in hand,his pupils had never any cause for complaint. As amathematician he wasunrivalled, and often reminded his pupils of thelate Professor Chhatre, of the

File1-Tilak TrialDeccan College, Mr. Tilak "s own Gum. Hisresignation was a heavy lossto the College in more ways than one.

After freeing himself from the drudgery of school,]Mr. Tilak resolved todevote most of his time to a life of publicusefulness. Having obtainedmore leisure just at the time when the Age ofConsent Bill was broughtbefore the Viceroy's Council, Mr.Tilak rushed intothe controversy withhis w^onted ardour. Not that he was ever opposed tothe principle of socialreform, but he disliked reform by coercion. The Ageof Consent Bill, how-ever laudable its aims and objects might have been,was virtually anattempt to force reform on Hindu society byCxovernment interference; andeven many sincere advocates of social reform wereconsequently opposed t>it. Mr. THak's attitude in this matter at oncebrought about a division ofPoona society into tw^o camps, the Orthodox and theReformers, and the¦rupture between the two widened as new differencesled to fresh quar-rels. After resigning his place in the College, Mr.Tilak started a LawGlass, the first of its kind in this Presidency, forthe purpose of preparing•students for the High Court and DistrictPleadership examinations. He.also took over charge of the Kesari^ while ProfessorKelkar remained editorof the Mahrfitta till about the end of the year.Professor Kelkar, however,

File1-Tilak Trialhad soon to discontinue his connection with thepapers altogether, and Mr.Tilak became the editor of both. A year later therewas a partition betweentheia of the press and the papers, and Mr. Tilakbecame the sole proprietor-and editor of the Kesari SiUdL the Mahratta, whileProfessor Kelkar and Mr.

^ of theVedas.' Mr. Tilak in this book traces the Greektradition of Orion and also thename of that constellation to Sanskrit Agrayana orAgrahayana ; and as thislatter word means the beginning of the year, Mr.Tilak concludes that allthe hymns of the Rigveda containing references tothat word or the varioustraditions clustering round it must have beencomposed before the Greeksseparated from the Hindus and at a time when theyear began with the Sunin the constellation of Orion or Mrigashirsha, /.e., before 4,000 B. C. Itis impossible to do justice to his wide research andmasterly argu-ment in a sketch like this, but everybody who has acuriosit>^ on thesubject ought to go through the book himself. Thebook was highl\praised by European and American, scholars, and MrTilak's conclusion.^may now be said to have met -with universalacceptance. Many Orienta-lists, such as Max MuUer, Weber, Jacobi. and Whitneyhave acknowledged

File1-Tilak Trialthe learning and the originality of the author.After the book was pub-lished, Mr. Tilak carried on for some time afriendly correspondence withProf. Max Muller and Weber on some of thephilological questions-discussed by him, and the result was that bothparties agreed that therewas much to be said on each side. Professor Whitneyof America, only ashort time before his death in 1894, wrote an ablearticle in the Journal ofthe American Oriental Society in which he highlyeulogised Mr. Tilak'stheories. Similarly Dr. Bloomfield, of John HopkinsUniversity, in anauniversary address, spoke about Mr. Tilak's book inthese term<5 : —

' But a literary event of even greater importancehas happened« ithin the last two or three months — an eventwhich is certain to stirthe world of science and culture- far more than thebeatific reminiscences JSome ten weeks ago I received from India a smallduodecimo voluif\e, inthe clumsy get-up and faulty t>'pography of thenative Anglo-Indian press.'It came with the regards of the author, a persontotally tmknown to fame

I Iiad never heard his name; Bal Ga^gadhar Tilak B.A. LLT B. Law Lec-turer, and Pleader, Poona. The book is published byMrs. Radhabai

File1-Tilak TrialAtmaram Sagoon, Bookseller and Publisher, Bombay.The title is ' Orionor Researches into the Antiquity of Vedas, ' It willbe understood that the•entry of the Uttle volume upon my horizon was notsuch as to prejudice mein its favour, and secondly, I placed it where itmight be reached withouttoo much effort in the drowsy after-dinner hour, tobe disposed of alongwith much second class matter, such as reaches ascholar through the chan-lieis of :the Postal Union. Nor was the preface atall encouraging. Theauthor blandly informs us that the age of theRigveda cannot be less than4, 000 years before Christ and that the expressrecords of the yearly Hinduantiquity point back to 6, 000 before Christ. Havingin mind the boundlessfancy of the Hindu through the ages and hisparticularly fatal facilit\- for'taking his mouthful' when it comes to a question ofnumbers, I proposed tomyself to continue to turn the leaves of the bookwith the amused smile oforthodoxy befitting the occasion. But soon theamused smile ga^^ wayto an uneasy sense that something unusual liadhappened. I was first im-pressed with something leonine in the way in whichthe author controliedt4ie Vedic Hterature and the Occidental works on thesame; my superficialreading was soon replaced by absorbed study andfinally ha\ing beenprepared to scoff mildly, I confess that the authorhad convinced me in all

File1-Tilak Trialthe essential points. The book is unquestionably thehterary sensation ofthe year just before us; history the chronicreadjuster shall have her handsuncommonly full to assimilate the results of Tilak»sdiscovery and arrangeher jxiraphemalia in the new perspective ? '

It would have been well if Mr. Tilak had immediatelyfollowed the sameMue and tackled the many questions which he had leftunsolved in this bookon Orion; but the profession he had chosen, namely,that of a Law-lectttrerand a Journalist, would not allow him the time toconcentrate his attention on^ue.sitioiis of philology and chronology.

\yii\ 1894 Mr. Tilak had to busy himself with animportant case, partlyin the interest of a personal friend and partly inthe larger interests of theBaroda State. This was the well-known Bapat Case inwhich a SpecialCommission was appointed to try Rao Sahib W. S.Bapat, the de facto head ofthe Settlement Department, for a number of chargesof corruption. The casearose out of a conspiracy against the Department,which was practically,headed by the British Political department; and Mr.Bapat's trialhad certain special features of interest inasmuch asit was timed to beheld behind the back of the Maharaja who was then ona tour in Europe,and the revelations in the trial were expected bythe enemies of the Maharaja

File1-Tilak Trialto cast a damaging slur on at least one aspect ofhis administration. It was

6

not the impopularity of the Settlement Departmentalone but the unpopula-rity of many high personages, whom we need not heremention, wliichbrought the matters to a head. Mr. Bapat, it wasevident, was going tobe uiade a scapegoat and to be punished not only forhis own sins, butvicariously for the sins of others also. Theprosecution was conductedby the Hon. P. M. Mehta and afterwards by Mr.Branson, Bar-at-Law,and the defence was conducted by the late Mr. M. C.Apte and ?tlr.D. A. Khare. But Mr. Tilak had the lion's share ofthe work of the de-fence, and the splendid results of the searchingcross-examination of. witnesses for the prosecution, and the masterlyargument for the defencestand out as a monument to his industry and ability.

Mr. Tilak' s activity in contemporary politics wasnot, however, left inabeyance. He had now ceased to be the Secretary ofthe Deccan StandingCommittee of the National Congress ; but as theSecretary of the Bombay ^Provincial Conference he organized its first fivesessions, the fifth of which,

File1-Tilak Trialheld at Poona in 1892, under the Presidency of theHon. Mr. P. M. Mehta,-was a splendid success. The next year, with itsdeplorable riots bet wee nHindus and Mahomedans, and the many new questionssuggested by them,brought about a great change in the poHticalatmosphere, and Mr. Tilakwas again to the front. Never before did he placehimself in such directantagonism with the apparent policy of someAnglo-Indian officials andnever before did those officials realize so well hisinfluence over the masses.Mr. Tilak's attitude with respect to this riotquestion, whether right orwrong, was clear and unmistakable. He attributedthose manifestationsof racial prejudice mainly to the secret instigationof some short-sightedAnglo-Indian oflScers. The policy of 'Divide andRule,' initiated by LordDufferin, was, according to him, at the bottom qfall the mischief; andthe only effective way, he contended, to check theseriots was for Gu\ em-inent officials to observe strict neutrality betweenHindus and Mahomedans .He made, in fact, a direct charge against a certainclass of officials andthey naturally resented it. Both Lord Harris, theGovernor, and his Secre- 'tary, Mr. Lee-Warner, were anything but favourablydisposed towards him;but Mr. Tilak was not a man to be cowed down byofficial frowns. ThroughWs^'pscper the J^esarz"he exercised an immenseinfluence over the masses,

File1-Tilak Trialand it is this influence that is mainly responsiblefor the infusion of a newspirit among- the peopk. His influence with theediicated class was alsogreat. He was twice elected a member of the localLegislative Council andalso a Fellow of the Bombay University. In 1895 heheaded the poll at thegeneral elections to the City Municipality of Poonaand won the esteem ofhis colleagues as a sound practical worker.

The new spirit had hitherto manifested itselfchiefly in a return towardsthe veneration of indigenous institutions. The mostnoticeable instance of thiswas the revival of old religious worship in the formof theGanpati and the Shi-waji festivals, and Mr. Tilak'sname has come to beiudissolubly connected withboth these movements. Mr. Tilak firmly believed thata healthy venerationof the old gods and the national heroes would bestinfuse a true spirit of na-tionality aud patriotism. The run for spuriousimitations of foreign ideasand customs and the consequent spirit ofirreligiousness among the youngergenerations were, in his opinion, exerting adisastrous influence upon themoral character of the Indian youth ; and if thingswere allowed to drift inthis way, the ultimate result, Mr. Tilak believed,would be a moral bank-ruptcy from which no nation can ever hope to rise.It was a very grave-

File1-Tilak Trialproblem , and even the Government of India hadturned their attention to itat that time. The official panacea, however, was theteaching of moraltext-books in Indian schools, which Mr. Tilak inseveral articles in theMahratta severely criticised. Mr. Tilak thought thatto make Indianyouths more self-reliant and more energetic, theymust be taught greaterself-respect, and that could only be done by makingthem respect theirreligion and their forefathers. Excessive andaimless self-debasement mayperhaps be a good thing in an asetic or aphilosopher, but it does mischief inpractical life. Superfluous patriotism may sometimeslead to excesses, butit wiU also do some good; while self-denyingabjectness will only lead tolethargy and death. This is, in brief, Mr. Tilak'ssocial aud poUticalphilosophy ; and however opinions may vary as to itscorrectness, nobodycan deny that he has followed it consistently. Mr.Tilak has often beenaccused of hypocracy and inconsistency in matters ofsocial reform. Heis a practical reformer in his own way. He haseducated his daughters, post-poned their marriages tiU the utmost ^mit sanctionedby the Shastras, advo-cated relaxation of caste restrictions, andgenerally sympathized with thesocial reform movement; and yet he attacked thesocial reform party. Superfi-cial observers are staggered at this strangeincongruity of behaviour, while his

File1-Tilak Trialopponents attribute it to a desire to gain cheappopularity. The fact is, hisconduct in this matter was entirely the result ofhis strong convictions. Hedesired social reform, but did not believe in themen or the methods thatwere then employed in carrying it out. The so-calledsocial reformers of thepast generation were not, in his opinion, the menwho possess theaptitude or the moral qualities requisite for asuccessful reform movement.Hence his critcisms are generally directed to themen and not to the objectaimed at. This is the real key to Mr. Tilak'sattitude as regards social,reform. His principle of criticism is in fact thesame with respect topolitical as well as social questions. He mayapprove of a Governmentmeasure and yet criticise the conduct of officialswho cany it out; similarly

8

lie may desire a particular reform and yet sronglycondemn those who wantto pose as its ministers.

In 1895 Mr. Tilak came to be associated with theShivaji Commemora-tion movement. A stray article of his in the Kesariof 23 April 1895 gavesuch an impetus to the public desire to subscribefor the repair of Shivaji'stomb at Raigad fort in the Kolaba district Rs.

File1-Tilak Trial20,000 were in a short timecoilected, mostly from small contributions.Festivals also began to be cele-brated at many places since that time on Shivaji'sbirthday or coronationday. When it was resolved to hold the eleventhNational Congress inPoona, in the Christmas of 1895, Mr. Tilak was, bythe united voice of allparties in Poona, chosen its Secretary, and had assuch to do almost thewhole work of organization in the beginning. Heworked till September,when differences as to whether the Social Conferencewas to be held in theCongress pandal led to bitter party quarrels andcompelled Mr. Tilak toretire from the work. He did not, however, cease totake interest in theCongress, but on the contrary did much from outsideto make it the greatsuccess it was.

The year 1896 saw one of the severest types offamine in this Pre-sidency, and Mr. Tilak was again to the front. Heurged upon the BombayGovernment to carry out the provisions of the FamineCode and maderarkmssuggestions which, \i adopted, would haveconsiderably alleviated the suffer-ings of the people. In Poona he succeded inpreventing famine riots by openingcheap grain shops jnst in time. When he heard of thedistress of the weaversin Sholapur and Nagar he went on the spot, and, inconsultation with thelocal leaders, framed a scheme by which local

File1-Tilak Trialcommittees were to co-operate with Government to provide suitable reliefto that class. The schemewas similar to the one adopted by the LieutenantGovernor of the North-Wfestern-Provinces. Unfortimately, owing to theunsympathetic attitude ofthe Bombay Government on this question, the schemewas not accepted;and what is more, the Bombay Government got theprovision sanctioningsuch schemes amended. The wrath of Government wasapparently causedby the persistent agitation of the Poona SarvajanikSabha, of which Mr.Tilak was supposed to be the leading spirit, toacquaint the people with theconcessions allowed to them by law during faminetimes, and to inform theGovernment of the real wants of the people. Thisagitation was of coursenot much to the taste of oflScials. The Sabha sentseveral memorials toGovernment but received curt or no replies, andultimately it came to beproscribed altogether. AU this of course wasindirectly meant for Mr. Tilak,who fearlessly pursued his own way.

Mr. Tilak's next service to his countrymen was thepart he played in thecampaign against the plague. As soon as the plagueappeared in Poona he

9

File1-Tilak Trialstarted the Hindu plagtie hospital and worked fordays together to collect thenecessary funds . While most of the so-calledleaders in Pooaa had run away ,he remained at his post, moved among the people,accompanied the searchparties as a volunteer, managed the hospital,established a free kitchen inthe segregation camp, and was often in communicationwith Mr. Rand andHis Excellency the Governor on the subject ofhardships suffered b}- thepopulace. In his papers he strongly supported thevarious measures adoptedby Government for the suppression of the plague, butadvised their beingcarried out in a humane and conciliatory spirit. Headvised the people notto make useless resistance, and took the Poonaleaders to task for flyingawa\' at a time of distress.

But his public services did not save him fromprosecution and persecutionby Government. The story of his first prosecutionfor sedition in 1897 ma\be briefly told as follows : —

In 1895 a movement was set afoot for repairing thetomb of Shivajiat Raighur, which at last in 1896 took the shape ofa festival in honour ofShivaji on his birthday. In I897, owing to theplague, the festival was notheid on the birthday of Shivaji but on hiscoronation day, which happendto fall on the 13th of June. On that day, and on thepleviotis and subse-

File1-Tilak Trialquent days, a long programme of prayers,hymn-singing, sermon-preachingOf Puran and lecturing was gone through. A ver}-condensed report ofthe proceedings, with a hymn sung on the occasion,was published in theissue of the Kesari of the 15th of Jime.

On the 22nd of June Mr, Rand and Lieutenant Ayerstwere murderedby some unknown person, which created intenseexcitement, especially inthe Anglo-Indian community of Poona and Bombay. TheBombay Govern-ment gave sanction to prosecute Mr. Tilak on Fridaythe 26th July, andMr. Baig, the Oriental Translator, laid informationbefore Mr. J. SandersSlater, the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay,on the 27th July, Mr.Tilak was arrested the same night in Bombay andplaced before the Magis-trate the next day. An appHcation was made to theMagistrate for bail soonafter, which was strenuously and successfullyopposed by Gk)vemment. On the29th a similar application was made to the HighCourt, which was dis-allowed, with permission to apply again. The casewas committed to theHigh Court Sessions on the 2nd of August and anapplication for bail wasagain made to Mr. Justice Budrudin Tayabji, thepresiding Judge, in Chambersby Mr. Davur of the Bombay Bar, instructed byMessrs. Bhaishankar andKanga. The application was, of course, verystrenuously exposed by the

File1-Tilak TrialAdvocate-General. The Judge, however, admitted Mr,Tilak to bail.

The case came on for hearing in due course on theeighth of Septemberand lasted for a week. Mr, Pugh, of the CalcuttaBar, assisted by Mr.

10

Garth, defended Mr. Tilak, aud the Hon'ble Mr. BasilLang, theAdvocate-General, conducted the prosecution. Mr.Justice Stracheypresided at the trial; and the Jury consisted offive European Christ-ians, one European Jew, two Hindus, and one Parsee.The sixEuropeans returned a verdict of guilty, and thethree Native jurors of notguilty. The Judge accepted the verdict of themajority and sentenced Mr.Tilak to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment.When the Jury had re-tired to consider their verdict, an application wasmade to the Judge on be-half of the accused to reserve certain points of lawto the Full-Bench ,which was refused. A similar application to theAdvocate-General, subse-quently made, met the same fate. On the I7th ofSeptember 1897 an appK-cation was made to the High Court for a certificatethat the case was a fitone for appeal to the Privy Council. Thisapplication was heard by Sir

File1-Tilak TrialCharles Farran, C. J., and Candy and Strachey, JJ.and leave was refused.

An appeal, however, was made to the Privy Counciland the RightHonourable Mr. Asquith, who is now the PrimeMinister of England, arguedthe appeal on behalf of Mr. Tilak on the 19th ofNovember 1897. LordHalsbury, the Lord Chancellor, who was then a memberof the Cabinetwent out of his way to preside over the Council,though it was well-knownthat the State Secretary for India, another memberof the Cabinet, hadsanctioned the prosecution. Mr. Asquith laid greatstress on the misdirec-tion of the Jury by Mr. Justice Strachey ; but thePrivy Council, takingthe whole summing-up together, saw no occasion forcorrecting anythingtherein ; and consequently they rejected theapplication for leave to appeal.

The judicial avenues to Mr. Tilak were thus closed.But the event-had made a deep impression on the British public,and Professor Max Mn"-ler and Sir William Hunter, with thelarge-heartedness which usually charac-terised them, took the lead in presenting aninfiuentially signed petition tothe Queen, praying for mercy to Mr. Tilak on theground that he was agreat scholar and that there was much to be said infavour of his release.This petition, among other things, had its effect,and after negotiations

File1-Tilak TrialMr. Tilak was persuaded to accept certain formalconditions (Vide page 14Magisterial Proceedings) and be was released byorder of His Excellencythe Governor of Bombay on Tuesday 6th of September1898.

Mr. Tilak having lost enormously in physique by hisimprison-ment, he Spent the wxt six months in recouping hisheahh.First he spent some days at the Sinhgad sanitariumand after attend-ing the Indian National Congress at Madras inDecember hemade a tour to Ceylon. The next year or two he spentin taking vipthe threads of the movements which he had already inhand, but the

11

work in connection with whicli was suspended owingto his imprisonment.A grand Shivaji festival was celebrated on theRaygad HiU Fort in the year1900 ; and the cause of perpetuating the memory ofShirvaji by a monumentwas pushed on appreciably further thereby. But moreimportant than any otherwas the work that he undertook of developing hisidea about the antiquityof the Vedas which was, as it were, haunting himpersistently ever sincehe published his book on the 'Orion' . Much of hisspare time during the

File1-Tilak Trialpreceding ten years, he says in his introduction tothe new book ' TheArctic Home in the Vedas ' , had been devoted to thesearch of e\idencewhich would lift up the curtain through which adeeper peep could be takeninto the misty antiquity of the Vedas . He thenworked on the lines followednp in the ' Orion ' , and by a study of the latestresearches in Geology andArchaeology, bearing on the primitive history ofman, he was gradually ledto a different line of search and then finally theconclusion was forced onhim that the ancestors of the Vedic Rishis lived inan Arctic home in inter-glacial times. The enforced leisure in the Jail heturned to account in deve-loping his theory with the assistance ofthe'complete edition of the, Rig Veda,which Prof. Max Muller had sent him and the use ofwhich was allowed toMm in the Jail. The first manuscript of the new bookwas written atSinghgad at the end of 1898, but Mr. Tilakdeliberately delayed the publicationof the book as he wanted to consult Sanskritscholars in India and as thelines of investigation had ramified into many alliedsciences. The book wasactually- published in March 1903 and it was veryfavourably received ever\--where. We wiU quote only one important testimony,that by Doctor F.W. Warren, the President of the Boston Universityand the author of*Paradise Found', which is published in the OpenCourt Magazine Chicago

File1-Tilak Trialfor September 1905.

"Within the Hmits of this article no summary of theauthor's argumentcan be given. Suffice it here to say that in thejudgment of the presentwriter the array of the evidences set forth is farmore conclusive than an\-ever attempted by an Indo-Iranian Scholar in theinterest of any earlierhypothesis. Absolute candor and respect for thestrictest methods of his-torical and scientific investigation charcacterizethe discussion throughout.This results in part no doubt from the fact that theauthor's own attitudeof mind was at the outset highly sceptical. He says: — "I did not start withany preconcevived notion in favour of the Arctictheory; nay, I regardedit as highly improbable at first; but theaccumulating evidence in itssupport eventually forced me to accept it." It ishard to see how any othercan-did mind can master the proof produced withoutbeing mastered by it inturn. Twenty years ago, in preparing my work on thebroader problem ofthe era die-land of lie whole human lace, I wentthrough all the Vedic andAvestic texts so far as existing translations wouldthen permit, reaching

12

at the end the same conclusion that Mr. Tilak has

File1-Tilak Trialnow reached. lucideut-ally, in my argument a new light was thrown uponvarious points in themythical geography and cosmography of the ancientIranians, — light whichthe foremost Iranist of his time, Professor Spiegel,generously acknow-ledged. Incidentally, I also arrived at a newinterpretation of theVedic myth of the captive waters, and of other Vedicmyths. EspeciaDygratifying, therefore, is it to me to find in Mr.Tilak a man in no degreedependent on translations, yet arriving not only atmy main conclusion, butalso at a number of minor ones of which I had nevermade publicmention. I desire publicly to thank this far-offfellow-worker forthe generosity of his frequent references to mypioneer work in the commonfield, and for the solidity and charm of his own, incertain respects, mose:authoritative contribution. Whoever will master thisnew work, and thatof the late Mr. Jhon O' Neill on T/ic night of theGods, will not be likelyever again to ask, where was the earliest home ofthe Aryans? "

But by the time Mr. Tilak's new book was issued tothe public, he wasalready in the vortex of another prosecution at theinstance of the BombayGovernment". This was the well-known Tai MaharajCase which has takenup a big slice out of Mr Tilak's time since 1901 andwhich, besides sub-

File1-Tilak Trialjecting him to far more excruciating physicaltrouble and mental torturethan any State Prosecution for sedition is capableof, actually involved himin a loss of several thousands of rupees.

The story of this case briefly is as foUows; —

Mr. Tilak was the principal among the four trusteesand executors ofthe estate of the late Shri Baba Maharaja, a firstclass Sardar of Poona and aparticular friend of Mr. Tilak. Baba Maharaj died on7th of August 1897,a couple of days after Mr. Tilak was released onbail by the High Court inthe State Prosecution for Sedition against him in1897. Misfortunes nevercome singly, and, by a curious co-incidence, on thevery day on which Mr.Tilak returned from Bombay after his release, he wascalled to the death-bedof his friend who insisted upon Mr. Tilak acceptingthe office of an executorunder his last wiU and testament; and Mr. Tilakagreed to take the heavyresponsibility in the hope that by doing so he mightbe the meansof regenerating the Maharaj family, one of the oldaristocratic families ofthe Deccan — ^by freeing it from debts and handingan unencumbered estateto an I heir who might be educated and brought uputider his personalsupervision. TiU sometime after Mr. Tilak's releasefrom jail, hecould not apply his mind to the administration ofthe estate.

File1-Tilak TrialBut as soon as he could take up the work he foundtwo matters urgentlywaiting for disposal. One was the liquidation ofdebts and the curtailment•oi expenditure as the only and necessary means tothat end, and the

U li

13

-other was the giving of a boy in adoption to TaiMaharaj, as owing toplague, then raging in Poona, hnman life had becomeuncertain in the city,said Tai Maharaj was of course the only person whocould adopt a son to herhusband. Both these matters unhappily contained thegerm of thefuture dispute. The liquidation of debts meant thecurtailment ofexpenditure, and this couM not be very agreeable toTai Maharaj.And the young widow, well aware of the beneficentintentions of Mr.Tilak, at first cheerfully accepted her position asthe titular representa-tive of the estate the real and effective ownershipbeing vested in thetrustees appointed by her husband's testament. Butthe lady was so»>iigot over by her favourite Karbhari and was taught tofancy herself to be theequitable owner of the estate and to regard herpossible divestment by anadopted boy as a legitimate grievance. There were

File1-Tilak Trialalso harpies who fed onher, had made themselves more or less dear to her asthe objects of idleamusement in her widowed leisure, and who graduallyand slyly nestledinto her confidence as counsellors that whisperedagreeable words and madeI^easant suggestions. They magnified to her eyes thesad points in herfuture plight as a mere pensioner and a dependantupon the estate when, ifshe had but the will, she had also a way to remainindependent for ever orat any rate make terms with the boy who would liketo sit in her lap andtake the estate even as conditioned by her with afar-sighted eye to the wel-fare of herself and her most favourite and activelyco-operating counsellor.But even such a limited and conditioned estate maybe a fortune to manyboys who were comparatively poor as they were, andwould gladlv seekadoption or be persuaded thereto by their brothers,for instance, who, inthe event of such an adoption, might find their ownmeans appreciably aug-mented by at least one lawful sharer being clearedout of the wav to theancestral estate. And all this did happen in thecase of this unfortunatelady. The cutting down of the budget caused heralarm, and the machina-tions of the unscrupulous party, led by oneNagpurkar an.i Pandit Maharajof Kolhapur, who entered into a conspiracy to getTai '-'aha^aj to adoptBala Maharaj, Pandit's brother, were encouraged by

File1-Tilak Trialher Stlul moods. Butneither the lady nor Nagpurkar had courage enough toopeniy oppose ihetrustees, the former having all along a deep-rootedconviction that thetrustees would do nothing that should either benefitthe n'sel/es personallyor compromise the posthumous welfare of her latehu.ija jti. And at anyrate there was admittedly no disagreement betweentheoi and her upto the18th of June, 1901, the day when they all finallystarted for Aurangabad-where eventually a boy was given in adoption to herfrom the Babre branchof the Maharaj family.

But on her return from Aurangabad she again fellinto the hands ofevil counsellors and Tai Maharaj was induced by heradvisers of evil to

14

get the probate of her husband's will cancelled inthe belief that shewould be then quite free and her own mistress. Theapplication wasmade to Mr. Aston, District Judge, Poona on 29thJuly 1901.

The proceedings in this application lasted from thatdate to the 3rdof April 1902. Altogether about thirty-four sittingswere held, out ofwhich so many as 14 were taken up by the

File1-Tilak Trialcross-examination of Mr. Tilakunder the united battery of Mr. Aston and TaiMaharaja's Pleaders.'The principal noticeable point in these proceedingsis that the Auranga-bad adoption, though not raised to the status of adistinct issue, wasforced in by Mr. Aston as almost the principalquestion to be decided/and a whole flood of documentary and oral evidencebearing on it fromthe side of Tai Maharaj was let in, in spite of Mr.Tilak's challenge andprotest to the contrary, through the wide floodgatesof Mr. Aston's ideas-of the Law of Evidence on the point of relevancy.The specific issues raisedwere only whether the grant of Probate to Mr. Tilakand others had becomeuseless and inoperative and whether the executorshad become unfit to act inthe Trust so as to make the appointment of newtrustees necessary. On theseissues Mr. Aston decided in the affirmative, heldthe Aurangabad adop-tion disproved, revoked the Probate and ordered thecosts, as in a siiit^ X.o-be borne by Mr. Tilak and Mr. Khaparde personally.The judgment isa lengthy document of about 40 printed foolscappages, but 90 per centof it is devoted to findings and criticism uponfacts relating to whollyirrelevant matters such as the alleged confinementof Tai Maharaj atAurangabad, the Aurangabad adoption, the alleged illtreatment of TaiMaharaj at Poona — matters which, it must be

File1-Tilak Trialremembered, Mr. Tilakhad protested against as irrelevant, and relating towuich he did not putin a single scrap of evidence except by his ownanswers given undercompulsion, and upon which he instructed his pleaderto let him severelyalone in examination by him. Obviously, therefore,there was only aone-aided account of all these matters before Mr.Aston, and yet he didnot scruple to draw conclusions and make criticismsas if he had all thepossi )le evidence from Mr. Tilak's side before him.The whole was aregular Inquisition, Mr. Aston himself acting thepart of a 'Devil'sAdvocate' against Mr. Tilak.

As the result of the Inquistion over which hepresided, Mr. Astoafound that Mr. Tilak had not only deserved discreditby revocation ofProbate, but had committed a number of offences inthe transactionsbrought to his notice, and he crowned the improper,illegal and harassingproceedings in his Court as a Civil Judge by takirgaction under 476 of theCri. Pro. Code, and committing Mr. Tilak to the CityMagistrate to be dealtwith according to law. The criminal chargesformulated against him were

15

File1-Tilak Trialsevea and as follows:-f 1) Making false complaintfor breach of trust againstNagpurkar. ('In this connection Mr. Aston even wentout of his way toinduce Nagpurkar to put in an application forsanction under sec. 195 Cr.P. C. J (2) Fabricating false evidence for use bymaking alteration andinterpolation in the accounts of the Aurangabadtrip. (3 J Forgery inconnection with the above . (4j Corruptly using orattempting to use asgenuine evidence — evidence known to be false orfabricated in connectionwith the attesting endorsement of Tai Maharaja onthe adoption deed. (5)Corruptly using as true or genuine evidence the saidadoption deed. (6)Fraudulently using as genuine the adoption deedcontaining his interpola-tion over Tai Maharaj's signature, f?) Intentionallygiving false evidenceby ten sentences which were grouped under threesub-heads relating to (a)the fact of adoption at Aurangabad , (3) TaiMaharaj's confinement in theWada at Poona, and (c) use of force to Bala Maharajin the same Wada.This in itself is a formidable list. But to make thething complete we mayas well state here that not content with acommitment on these charges,Mr. Aston had suggested to Government aninvestigation in certain othercollateral charges arising out of the sametransaction such as giving falseinformation to the Police, cheating, unlawfulassembly, riot, &c., &c.

File1-Tilak Trial

Repeated appeals were made to the High Court which,if it had givenone stich in time would have saved nine which it hadto give afterwards. Butwhile upsetting Mr.Aston's order for the revocationof Probate as wrong,the High Court allowed in a light-hearted fashionthe criminial proceedingsagainst Mr. Tilak to go on. As regards the charge offalse complaint, Mr.Beaman refused to uphold the sanction forprosecution against Mr. Tilakwhich fell through. But after a prolonged trial Mr.Clements, SpecialMagistrate, convicted Mr. Tilak on the charge ofperjury and sentencedhim to rigorous imprisonment for eighteen months,admitting that Mr.Tilak was not actuated by selfish motives butcondemning him as a manwho was demented and whose mind was unhinged byobstinacy and loveof power.

The fairweather region, however, began with thedecision of Mr. Lucas,"the Sessions Judge, who in appeal, reduced thesentence to six months aftercompletely vindicating Mr. Tilak's motives andintentions. Mr. Lucas'sjudgment for conviction was top-heavy andinsupportable and Mr. Tilakcame out triumphant and with flying colours in theHigh Court on the 4thof March 1904. The charge of perjury was knockeddown on the head andGovernment out of very shame withdrew all the other

File1-Tilak Trialcharges; and so Mr.Tilak emerged from the fiery ordeal without a stainon his character.

The judgment of Sir Lawrence Jenkins was for allpractical purposesa judgment on the adoption suit itself. For theparty of Tai Maharaj,

16

having fallen to the temptation of using Mr. Astonto the fullest extentpossible, had sown the wind by getting Mr. Tilak tobe committed on acharge of perjury relating to the factum itself ofadoption; and they mustthank themselves -for having to reap the whirlwindin that the adoptionitself was indirectly pronounced upon by the HighCourt. The crashof course came late, but it was complete when it didcome; and the cons-pirators against Mr. Tilak realised that they hadreally dug the grave forthemselves though meant by them forMr. Tilak. It wasof course extraordi-nary that the issue of an adoption should be decidedlike this in a criminalcase, butit was made inevitable by Mr. Aston for thegood of Tai Maharajand for the ruin of Mr. Tilak. But Mr. Aston nowfound himself hoistedwith his own petard ! The case took nearly all Mr.Tilak's time fromMay 1901 to March 1904. A calculation shows that

File1-Tilak Trialthese proceedingsoccupied about 160 sittings, Mr. Tilak having toappear in Court formost of these days in person. The aggravatingfeature of the prosecutionwas that in prosecuting Mr. Tilak the BombayGovernment wereindirectly seeking the fulfilment of their animusagainst him. Theywere fighting the battles of Tai Maharaj on theground of adoption.It was an evil combination of official animus and awoman's self-interest;and we for one cannot decide what was the real fact,namely, whether TaiMaharaj was a tool in the hands of Government orGovernment were a toolin her hands! The probability is that each of themused and was actuallyused in turn as a tool by the other to a certainextent, though it is tobe pitied that in all this the Government so farforgot their dignity as todebase and put themselves on the mean level of anilliterate, selfish andmisguided young widow ! All this took the publicinterest in the case farbeyond the personality of Mr. Tilak, though he wasno doubt the centralfigure therein.

How Mr. Tilak behaved during all these troubles ;how he could notonly keep the serenity of his mind so as to pursuehis ordinary avocationswithout detriment; how even in his darkest hourswhen expressions ofhope from others were only likely to have sounded as

File1-Tilak Trialhollow mockeriesor premature consolations, he not only maintainedcheerfulness enoughfor himself and to spare for others and proved asource of intellectualinspiration to his own legal advisers; how he couldcommand isola-tion of mind even amidst his deep-rooted andworrying anxieties, onlyintensified by the death of his eldest son, in orderto pursue his favouriteliterary studies to issue his latest book " theArctic Home in theVedas " a few days after his commitment by Mr. Aston— these are allmatters on which perhaps it is not for us to dwellat any length.

Mr. Tilak has since won the civil case for adoptionin the Court ofOriginal Jurisdiction at Poona which has completelyvindicated his wordand his action.

17

The next year Mr. Tilak spent ia organising hisprivate affairs,specially relating to the papers and the press. Theenormous circulationof the Kesari required the importation of a bigmachine for printing it,and the generosity of the Maharaja Gaikwad who soldto him the GaikwadWada at Poona for only a fair price, enabled him togive his papers and the

File1-Tilak Trialpress the much needed permanent local habitation.With his well-knownversatility he also applied his mind to the castingof a new kind ofMarathi type with a view to adapt it to a Marathilino-type machine, andin this matter he has achieved remarkable success.Lino-type makers inEngland have approved of his design of the new type,but the actualimportation of lino-type machines fitted withMarathi type has been delayedowing to the fact that there are very few printinghouses in the countrywho could afford to use Devanagari lino-typemachines and that conse-quently the lino-type makers in England cannot bepersuaded to lock theircapital in the casting of the new machines till thattime.

Since the year 1905 Mr. Tilak has been deeplyengrossed in activepolitical agitation. The Bengal Partition led to asudden upheaval ofnational sentiment throughout the country and to theinauguration ofthe movements of Swadeshi, Boycott, NationalEducation and vSwarajya.The Benares Congress was the beginning of anorganised and strong ex-pression of public opinion in the country; and thestory of the Calcutta andthe Surat Congresses is too fresh in the minds ofour readers to needreiteration. It has been acknowledged that Mr. Tilakwas by far the ablestleader of the new party of Nationalists and that it

File1-Tilak Trialwas owing to him thatthe lamp of nationalistic feeling, according t3 thenew lights, was keptburning in Western India since the partition.

Mr. Tilak's has been a most eventful life. Pie is aman oforiginality which is surpassed only by the glow ofhis fiery spirit and by hisuntiring activity. He scorns ignoble ease and isparticulary happy when heis face to face with an undertaking in which theodds are manifestly a>;ainsthim. Then again most of his acts have a realaltruistic aspect. His ambitionhas been to strive for the good of the people; andit is admitted that he hasbeen able to realise his ambition in a pre-eminentdegree. These two thingsgo to make up the secret of his success as a manwho, more than any otherof the present or the past few generations, hastouched the imagination ofmillions of his countrymen. The unprecedentedpopularity and esteemwhich Mr. Tilak enjoys and deserves needs nodescription. He combinesability, industry, enterprise and patriotism in sucha degree that the Bri-tish G-. vernment think they have always to bemindful of him. And manyof Mr. Tilak's friends will, we suppose, be contentto accept the attitude ofthe Mighty British Government towards him as perhapsthe most eloquenttestimony to his worth.

File1-Tilak Trial

* The first portion of this character sketch hasbeen taken from the book ofthe Tilak Case of 1897 with a few alterations.

INTRODUCTION.

This book contains a full and authentic account ofthe proceedingsof the great Tilak Trial which was held at the thirdCriminal Sessions ofthe Bombay High Court from the 13th to the 22nd July1908.

The present is the second State prosecution forsedition against Mr.Tilak, the first one being in 1897. In both thecases Mr. Tilak was pro-secuted in his capacity as the publisher of certainalleged seditious matterin his paper the Kesari. Mr. Tilak was even in 1897,as of course he isto-day, the most popular Mahratta-in India. And theKesari which nowenjoys the largest circulation of all newspapers,Indian or English, in thiscountry was even eleven years ago the most widelycirculated newspaper inthe Bombay Presidency. In the back-groimd of boththe prosecutions therewas a scene of great popular imrest due to theoperation of a repressivepolicy on the part of the Government resulting inpoHtical murders. Boththe cases were tried by a Judge of the Bombay HighCourt with the aid of a

File1-Tilak TrialSpecial Jury, a large majority of which was made upof Europeans, andwhich found Mr. Tilak guilt}- of sedition on boththe occasions by a majoritvin exactly the same proportion which the Europeanelement borethe Indian in that body. It only remains to be addedthat in both the Cc.the Indian public by an almost unanimous voiceadjudged the prosecuteto be ill-advised and the conviction unjust.

The genesis of the present prosecution could betraced to the abortivesession of the Surat Cougress, in December 1907,which marked theculminating point of the unpleasant relationsbetween Mr. Tilak asthe leader of the New Party and the Moderate schoolof Indian politicians ;and these relations might be taken as being in a waythe reflection of therelations between Mr. Tilak and the New Party on theone hand and theGovernment on the other. The out-burst ofsentimental violence and poli-tical crime in Bengal had for some time past helpedto accelerate the pro-cess of disintegration in the body of politicalworkers in this countr}-. And /the news of an attempt on the life of Mr. Allen, theCollector of Dacca, only ^couple of days previous to the session of the SuratCongress was universallyregarded as calculated to complete the fermentationof the political situationwhich was yeasty and inicomfortable enough already.When the Congress

File1-Tilak Trialdispersed at Surat on that memorable 27th ofDecember 1907 and the com-ponents of that unusually large gathering went awayto their homes in differ-ent parts of India, carrv'ing with them bittermemories and suUenthoughts, it looked as if glowing sparks from afearful furnace had beendriven by a malignant wind and spread broad-castamong magazines fullto the brim with combustibles. The first few weeksafter the Congress wit-nessed the course of futile but aggravatingrecrimination between differentCongress camps, while Government were wiselyreplenishing their resourcesof repression with a view to deal an effective blowat the New Party. Thebomb outrage at Muzzafurpore towards the end ofApril 1908 offered Govern-ment the psychological moment for inaugurating anera of arrests, searches,prosecutions and persecutions to which not even adistant parallel could

be found throughout the whole course of the history-of India under BritishRule.

In these affairs Bombay had of course its own share;and the Govern-ment never concealed their belief that whatevermight or might nothappen in Bengal or else where, Mr. Tilak was thesource of all politicalactivity and that no campaign of repressive

File1-Tilak Trialprosecutions could be evercomplete unless it involved this towering leader ofthe New Party. Sincehis return from Surat Mr. Tilak had, moreover, shownunusual activity.He organised the District and the ProvincialConferences and brought. theTemperance agitation in Poona to a head. Theorganised picketting atliquor shops Svasjlooked upon by Go^-ernmentofficials as the first object-lesson in the training of national volunteers; andas Mr. Tilak began toextend his lecturing tours to places even outsidePoona, Government musthave concluded that it was no longer safe to keepMr. Tilak free. By the timethe Bombay Legislative Council met at poona on the20th of June, Govern-ment had apparently decided to strike the blow athim ; and w^hen HisExcellency Sir George Clarke, the Governor ofBombay, remarked that cer-tain persons who possessed influence over thesociety were in the habit ofexciting feelings of hatred and contempt againstGovernment and feelingsof animosity between classes of his Majesty'ssubjects, that these personswere only playing with fire and that Governmentwould not be deterred byanvthing to put the law in motion against them,there was hardly any onewho had any doubt in his mind as to the realobjective of those remarks.Already four Native newspapers in the Presidencywere on their trial forsedition; and there could possibly be no mistake as

File1-Tilak Trialto the personage who wasnow specially meant to be honoured with the pregnantminatory prouounce-ment referred to above. A week before this, Mr. S.M. Paranjape, the editor ofthe Kal and a friend of Tilak, w^as committed to theHigh Court Sessions;and when he shifted his camp from Poona to Bombay toassist Mr. Paranjapein his defence, Mr. Tilak himself had a sort ofpremonition that he could notreturn to Poona for a considerably long time. Twodays after the Governor'sspeech the official sanction for ]Mr. Tilak' sprosecution was signedat Bombay, and on the next day, that is to say, onthe 24th of Juneat about 6 P. M. Mr. Tilak was arrested at theSardar Griha where he wasputting up at the time. The same evening his houseand press at Poonawere locked by the Pohce where the nexj; day theyconducted a search undera warrant by the Chief Presidency Magistrate ofBombay. By an extention ofthe warrant authorised by the District Magistrate ofPoona, the Police alsosearched, on the same day, Mr. Tilak' s residence atthe hill-fort sanita-rium -Singh Garh, following the unusual procedure ofbreaking openwindows and conducting a search behind the back ofany recognised repre-

3

File1-Tilak Trialsentative of the owner. The "''search at both theplaces resulted in nothing-of importance being found except a post-card, withthe names of two"books on explosives written thereon, whicli wasmade so much of at thetrial.

On the 25th of June Mr. Tilak was placed before Mr.Aston7the Chief Presidency Magistrate, who rejected anapplication for bailand remanded him to jail. While Mr. Tilak was injail it somehowdawned upon the Bombay Government that it was riskyto stake Mr.Tilak's ruin upon the article of the 12th of Mayalone, (See Exhibit C) ,and another sanction to prosecute Mr. Tilak, forpublishing the leading articlein the Kcsari of the 9th of June, was signed atBombay on the 26th of June.A fresh information was thereupon laid before Mr.Aston w^ho issued afresh warrant which was executed on Mr. Tilak injail. On the 29th ofJune some formal evidence was recorded, and Mr.Aston committed Mr.Tilak to the third Criminal Sessions of the BombayHigh Court on two setsof charges under Section 124 A and 153 A, by twoseparate orders ofcommitment.

The day next after his arrest, Mr. Tilak was lodgedin the Dongri jail atBombay. Here as an under-trial prisoner he wasallowed the use of food,

File1-Tilak Trialbedding and clothes supplied to him from his home.But Mr. Tilak had tosuffer from a grievance which was worse than anyphysical discomfort. Hewas practically handicapped in the preparation ofhis defence.

On the 2nd of July an application was made by Mr.Jinnah, Bar-at-Law,to Mr. Justice Davar, who presided at the thirdCriminal Sessions, for Mr,Tilak's release on bail, and the rejection of thisapplication together withits surrounding circumstances conclusively showedthe way the judicial windwas blowing.

Notice had been by this time served on Mr. Tilak'sSolicitor that theCrown would make an application to the Court fordirecting that a SpecialJury should be empanelled to try Mr. Tilak. It wasmost unfair to make suchan application as Mr. Baptista's able argumentagainst it ( vide page 18 jshows. But Government was lucky enough to be able torun on the inningsmerrily in their own favour entirely from thebeginning, and the hearing ofthe application for a Special Jury on the 3rd ofJuly resulted in itsbeing granted. +

"All the papeis taBen in custody were eithernecessary for a formal proof o£ Mr.Tilak's connection with the Kcsarl or mere innocentcuriosities of a miscellaneousnature. The second kind of papers were put in by the

File1-Tilak Trialdefence itself to show thekind of company in which the card was found. Asregavds the card it was success-fully explained away by Mr. Tilak, and eventuallyboth the Judge and the Ad-vocate-General had nearly to admit that ic could notcarry the proof of thecharge of Sedition against Mr. Tilak any furtherthan the incriminating articlesthemselves could do.

-i-It may be noted that one could easily know how tointerpret thelanguage of Mr. Justice Davar when in disposing ofthe application he remarkedthat '• it was in Mr. Tilak's own interest that heshould have the benefit of beingtried by a Jury selected from the citizen-^ ofBombay from a higher class ofcitizens."

Between the day of the rejection of the applicationfor bail and the dayuf the trial Mr. Tilak had slightly over a weekwithin which to prepare hisdefence. The jail aiithorities had of conrse givenhim certain facilities inthis repect ; but after all only a very limitednumber of friends could goand see him during a limited number of hours of theday. And eventuallysuch defence as Mr. Tilak could actualh- prepare wasnot because of thefacilities which were given to but in spite of therestrictions w^hich wereimposed upon him. The speech which Mr. Tilak

File1-Tilak Trialdelivered in his defenceoccupies nearly a hundred pages of this book andbristles wdth references tolegal and literary works. That shows in a w^ay thegreat resourcefulnessand the power of Mr. Tilak 's mind and memor\-.

The trial opened on the 13th of July, and attentionwas centred on the firstday on the ruling the Judge might give on thequestion of the amalgamationof the two cases in one trial and on theconstitution of the Jury. In the firstmatter Mr. Tilak's objection was over-ruled ; thetwo cases were amal-gamated ; and as many charges were put together asthe Judge then thoughthe might combine so as to be technicalh' within thelaw. Mr. Tilak objectedto the amalgamation both on the ground of law and ofthe prejudice whichmight be caused to him by the confusion in his ownmind as well as inthe minds of the Jury- in respect of the differentcharges, which reallydeserved to be separately tried if the requirementsof justice were to be satis-fied. The evil effects of this amalgamation were notlong in being realised;for, as will be seen from the proceedings,practically one single article wasmade the ground of three convictions and sentenceson three differentcharges. As regards the constitution of the Jury,the Judge in granting theapplication of the Crown for a Special Jur^- hadexpressed an expectation thatthe panel summoned would be such that, "making

File1-Tilak Trialallowance for the challenges,there would be a fair representation of thedifferent Indian communities onthe Jury as actually empanelled in the box. But farfrom that being the casethe Jury was made up of seven Europeans and twoParsis.

The recording of the evidence for the Prosecution,which wasmore or less of a formal character, occupied theCourt for about twoand a half days. The only witness that wascross-examined, with anydegree of keenness on the part of Mr. Tilak, was Mr.Joshi w'ho was putinto the box to identify certain officialsignatures, to put in the incrimin-inating and other articles, and to certify to thecorrectness of thetranslations which not he himself but some one elsehad made. Mr.Joshi could thus be cross-examined not as oneresponsible for the translationshimself, but more or less as an ofiicial expert whocould take liberties withthe questions put to him in the cross-examination orgive answers with acertain sense of irresponsibility. The record ofthis cross-examination,which was searching and creditable to the Marathischolarship of a manlike Mr. Tilak, will show^ that Mr. Tilak completelysucceeded in estabHshingthe merits of the objection which he subsequentlydwelt upon in his speech,namely, that though not purposely distorted themistranslations were

File1-Tilak Trialnumerous enough and calculated to create a wrongnotion in the reader'smind about the spirit of the Marathi articles.

UNIVERSITY

CF

Out of the fifteen exhibits put in for theProsecution seven were arti-cles from the Kcsari^ two were Government sanctionsfor the prosecution,two more were Mr. Tilak's formal declarations aspress owner, printerand publisher, and two others were the searchwarrants; one was thecopy of the Panchanama of the search in which werenoted sixty threedocuments which were seized by the Police* And theremaining exhibitwas the post card. Of these Mr. Tilak objected tothe admissibility of thearticles other than the charge articles and to thepost-card. But hisobjections were over-ruled. As regards thePanchanama, with the exceptionof the post-card, one portion of the papers includedtherein were not put inat all by the Prosecution, but were returned to Mr.Tilak. The remainingportion was bodily put in as a whole bundle by Mr.Tilak along with hiswritten statement. This bundle Mr. Tilak had to putin only for the purposeof showing the character of the papers and theconditions in which the post-

File1-Tilak Trialcard was found. But the putting in of these paperseven for that limitedpurpose was regarded technically as amounting togiving evidence for theDefence, and that cost Mr. Tilak the right of replywhich is extremelyprecious to an accused person, especially in a trialby Jury. Having lost theright of reply, Mr. Tilak decided also to put in anumber of newspaperswhich were calculated to prove his contention thathis articles were writtenin a controversy, and as repUes to the points, asthey arose in the controversy,between the Anglo-Indian papers on the one hand andthe Indian papers onthe other. Mr. Tilak's statement { See page 69Sessions Proceedings ) wasa simple and a brief one in Lwhich he asserted thathe was not guilty anddescribed the real character of the incriminatingarticles. 4

Mr, Tilak opened his speech for the defence at about4 P. M. on Wednes-day, the third day of the trial; and with theexception of Saturday and Sun-day following he occupied the time of the Court upto about the noon of Wed-nesday, the 8th day of the actual sitting of theCourt. It would, we think,be superfluous to say any thing about the speechwhich is undoubtedly a memo-rable one from many points of view. Mr.Tilak did notcommand 'eloquence'as the word is usually understood. But it amplyserved the purpose which Mr..Tilak really meant to serve by undertaking to defend

File1-Tilak Trialhimself in person.And whatever the verdict they gave, the Jury musthave, during the daysof the speech, acquired an intimate knowledge withthe master mind of theman on whom they were called upon to sit injudgment. The speech lasted,as the Judge himself was careful enough to note fora purpose of his own,for twenty one hours and ten minnutes and no Jury,constituted of averagemen,icoidd fail to perceive that whatever Mr. TUak'sfaults as a speaker,they (Could not have much fault to find with him asa man. And on thehundreds of highly educated people who crowded theCourt every day andthousands who read the reports outside, the speechhad undoubtedly agreatly elevating effect.

.r" As the speecli is one of extraordinarydimensions, it may be worth whilejust to briefly summarise the principal points madeby Mr. Tilak in orderto facilitate its comprehension by the reader. Theamalgamation of twocases, the joinder of four charges, and thesubsequent dropping of one ofthem only to make the trial good, was illegal, andlikely to cause prejudice.The admission of articles other than theincriminating ones to prove intentionwas improper. The post-card (Exhibit K J wasinadmissible. The transla-tions of the articles instead of the originals were

File1-Tilak Trialmade the basis of thecharges . The whole of the articles were embodied inthe charges and theparticulars of the manner in which the offences werecommitted were notspecified by setting out particular words orsentences alleged to be seditiousunder Section 124 A or criminal imder 153 A. Mr.Tilak practicallygave a discourse upon the law of Sedition] inEngland and thelaw of Sedition in India and made some interestingnew points aboutthe construction of sections 124A and 153 A. Withregard toSection 124 AMr. Tilak pointed out that the first portion of theSection did not applyto him at aU, because that contemplated the fact ofan actual excitementof disaffection, and there was in this case noevidence given whatever to showthat Mr. Tilak's writings resulted in such actualexcitement of disaffection.What was proved in the case was only the words ofthe published articlesand the identity of their publisher. The realcharacter of the words of thearticles was a matter for the Jury; but no evidencewas given to show to theJury, whc did not know Marathi, that the words werereally capable of themeaning which the Prosecution sought to attribute tothem. What re-mained of Sedtion 124A, therefore, was only anattempt to excite dis^affection. Mr. Tilak elaborately discussed themeaning of the word 'attempt'.He contended that the word could not be taken in its

File1-Tilak Trialordinary meaning butthat it had a special meaning of its own. An actunder the Section mustbe an intentional and premeditated act with thedefinite object of excitingdisaffection, which must be proved to have failed inaccomplishment bycauses not dependent upon the will of the man makingthe attempt butoperating quite independently of his control. Therewas here no evidenceof the success of the attempt, or of the failurebeing due to somethingoperating ijndependently of Mr. Tilak's will. Asregards the object of theattempt, even supposing that the words of thearticles were likely tocreate disaffection, the creation of thatdisaffection was not the objectwith which the articles were written. Even when awriting may be \'iolentor reckless and even when there may be a likelihoodof disaffectionbeing caused thereby, the writer could not bepunished for an attemptnndcr 124A, if he has no criminal intention. Thequestion of intentionwas therefore the principal one to be considered;and in deciding thisl ques-tion it was improper and unsafe to follow the maximofcivillaw,namel)^, that

every man must be presumed to intend the naturalconsequences of his acts .This intention could not be a matter of presumption,nor could it be proved

File1-Tilak Trialonly by the character of the words or inuendoes inwriting. Criminal in-tention must be positively proved by the evidence ofsurrounding circum-stances. The motive or object with which an act isdone is of course notidentical and ought not to be confounded withintention-, but this motive orobject is necessarily one of the most reliableindications in an inquiry as tointention. His real object or motive in writing thearticles, Mr. Tilak con-tended, was to give a reply to the theories andsuggestions, which were-controversial enough, of Anglo-Indian and othercritics who took the oppor-tunity of the bomb-outrages merely for recommendingto Government anaggravated policy of repression . The surroundingcircumstances showed that ;and to prove this one circumstance Mr. Tilak had toput in seventy-onenewspapers, Indian or Anglo-Indian, a perusal of thearticles in which wouldshow how big was the controversy that was raging.Mr. Tilak' s intentioncould not be to excite disaffection because thearticles showed that theywere written with the express purpose, mentioned inso many words inthe articles themselves, of giving advice and awarning to Government,The construction put upon the words of the articlesby the Prosecution wasunjustifiable. In the first place the words reliedon were mistranslations,some of them very gross ones, calculated to misleadthe mind of the Jury.

File1-Tilak TrialThe translator himself was not put into the witnessbox, but an oflficialexpert who generally certified to the correctness oftranslations which hehimself had not made. Even when the necessarycorrections were made, thereremained the inuendoes ascribed to the writer. Nospecific inuendoeswere charged and therefore no inuendoes could befound or supplied by theJury. But the Prosecution affected to find aninuendo in every word, as it -were, on the gratuitous assumption that the writerwas actuated by a crimi-nal intention. This intention they had not proved.As for the language ofthe articles, it had to be remembered that inwriting on high political thesis,^he writer had to labour under the disadvantage ofthe Marathi language notyet being able* to cope with the progress in thepolitical life of the country.Even the official expert had to use antiquateddictionaries in the witness box-to translate certain sentences put to him in thecross examination; andeven when he had the help of those dictionaries hecould not help makinghimself ridiculous by making queer translations ofsample words and sen-

tences. That should o^ive an idea as to the hardtask a leading newspaperwriter has to perform, as he has to write on allmanner of subjects without

File1-Tilak Triallong notice and sometimes on the spur of the moment.Moreover the wordsand ideas for which Mr. Tilak was now being soughtto be held responsiblewere not invented by him. They formed a part of thepolitical controversywhich had been raging in India for over thirty yearspast between the officialand the pro-official party on the one hand and thepopular party on theother. If the language of the articles was properlyunderstood in the light ofthese considerations, then the Jury would have nodifficulty in acquitting him.Something more than the mere objectionable characterof certain wordshad to be proved to bring home the charge to him;and the Prosecution nothaving done so, the Jur}' had no option but toacquit him. He appealed toto the Jury to regard the question as one not of anindividual, much lessthat of a man -^howaLsnoidi persona grata withGovernment, and who mightbe regarded as their political opponent, but as oneinvolving the liberty ofthe^. Press in India. He appealed to them to bear inmind the traditionsof their forefathers, who fought for their libertyof speech and opinion,to regard themselves as guardians of the Press evenin India, to standbetween the Press and the Government, and to temperthe operation of hardlaws. He told them?that they were not boimd by thedirection the Judgewould give them as to the facts and reminded themthat in India today,

File1-Tilak Trialas has been the case in England since Fox's LibelAct of 1792, the Juries arethe sole Judges of the merits of a seditious libel.The vigilance of theJuries in England saved the liberty of the Press andrendered the prose-cutions for sedition rare in England; and he beggedof the Jurymen that theyin India too would be actuated by similarpublic-spiritedness.

Mt. Tilak finished his address to the Jury at about12-30 noon on theeighth day which also proved the last day of thetrial. The address of Mr.Branson, the Advocate General, was conceived in asatirical spirit and attimes he indulged in language to which strongobjection could have beentaken. This address lasted for about four hours, butwas appajently hurriedup to a close. At about 5 P. M. mysterious movementsand consultations•^^egan among the Government party, and the Judgedeclared his intention offinishing the case that very day though they mighthave to sit till late atJiight. Mr. Tilak was taken by surprise and itaffected him particularly in

this way that he could not hold the consultationwith his friends and re-lations which he had intended to hold that eveningand the next morning,in view of the eventuality of his conviction. Thenet was somewhat

File1-Tilak Trialsurreptitiously woven round his life in the closingvesper hours of thatmemorable day. After the close of Mr. Branson'sspeech the Judge dehever-ed a strongly adverse charge. The Jury retired at8-3 P. M. and returned at9-20 P. M. On all the three charges they, by amajority of seven to two, foundMr. Tilak guilty, and the Judge, accepting theverdict, sentenced Mr. Tilak tosix years transportation and a fine of one thousandrupees, but not before headdressed him bitter words of reproach which Mr.Tilak had a right to regardas only insult added to injury. Mr. Tilak, however,had an occasion to tellthe Judge as well as the pubHc what he thought aboutit all; and when askedwhether he had any thing to say he uttered in asolemn and piercing tonethe following words from the dock; —

' ' All I wish to say is that in spite of theverdict of the Jury I maintainthat I am innocent. There are higher Powers thatrule the destiny of thingsand it may be the will of Providence that the causewhich I represent mayprosper more by my suffering than by my remainingfree . ' '

For the couple of hours since the Jury retired toconsider their verdict thebig Court room was possessed by a solemnity offeeling which was maricedon every face. The dim gas-light in the hall onlyadded to the effect of -hedead silence on the part of the spectators who were

File1-Tilak Triallooking from the Judgeto Mr. Tilak and from Mr. Tilak to the Judge. Thewhole thing over, :\Ir.Justice Davar rose at 10 P. M. and all rose withhim; and Mr. Tilak wasspirited away in the twinkling of an eye.

It was not till about 7 p. m. that evening, that thenews about theJudge's determination to finish the case that nightleaked from the KighCourt, which was kept specially guarded in alldirections. And yet withina couple of hours thousands of people gathered atthe entrances to theHigh Court and were anxiously waiting to know theresult of the trial.Heavy showers of rain were at intervals falUng, andthe dim light in thestreets combined with the murky weather spread apall of gloomwhich could not but affect the minds at least ofthose who wereabsorbed in imagining what must be passing in theCourt houseto which all access was completly prohibited. Atabout 10 P. m., the¦secret was out ; there was bustle and commotion allround the High.

10

Court buildings ; the mounted police were gallopingin ever}- direction todisperse the crowd; and the sad news of Mr. Tilak'sconviction and

File1-Tilak Trialsentence was conveyed from soul to soul almost by aprocess of tele-pathy. The Police and the Judge thus successfullyprevented what mighthave been a monster demonstration. But the nextmorning when the newsof the doings of the previous night spread like wildfire through the *tity thepeople felt aggrieved, as it were, at the smartnessof the authorities and theycommenced demonstration with a vengeance. The effectof the news of Mr.Tilak's conviction and transportation, especiallyupon the masses, wassomething tremendous. The great millhand populationwas determined tostrike work in honour of Mr. Tilak and by aspontaneous movementthe Bazars in several quarters in the city wereclosed for business. Thestreets, however, were kept alive by the cries ofnewspaper boys, for in thecTourse of that half week Mr. Tilak's pictures,newspapers giving accountsabout him and leaflets containing songs composed inhis honor weresold by tens of thousands. The popular feeling aboutMr. Tilak wasmanifested in a hundred other ways in private andpublic places in thegreat metropolitan City. The Police and some otherpeople who wereendowed with a larger measure of blind loyalty toGovernment than tact,discretion or common sense, most unwisely interferedwith the passivedemonstration. Some of the millhands also went outof their way in trying

File1-Tilak Trialto coerce those, whom they regarded as theblack-legs among them,into stopping work. The general result of all thesecontributory factorswas that the mob mind got out of control and therewas rioting in severalparts of the city ; the military had to be calledout and firing resulted inthe deaths of 15 and the wounding of 38 people. Fornearly six days businesswas at a standstill and a reign of terror prevailedin many parts of the city.These unusual demonstrations completly proved thegreat depth to whichthe roots of Mr. Tilak's popularity had penetratedin a population which isgenerally regarded as the least homogenous information and the leastsusceptible to political sentiment.

That is the story in brief of this great trial. Thecase is yet-sz.<^ /z^^zVe so far as the Privy Council isconcerned. Mr. Tilak's appealsto. Mr. Justice Davar, to the Advocate General andto the Appelate Bench ofthe High Court for a consideration of the objectionsurged by himon the ground of law have been rejected more or lesssummarily. But hestill hopes to get justice at the hands of the PrivyCouncil which is thehighest tribunal of appeal in the British Empire.

11

File1-Tilak TrialNOTE — The rejection of Mr. Tilak's application f«rhis release on tailwas universally regarded as unjustifiable. Curiouslyenough it so happenedeleven years ago that Mr. Justice Davar was engagedas Counsel for MrTilak in the sedition case 'of 1897, and hesuccessfully got out Mr. Tilakon bail as the result of an application made to Mr.Justice BadruddinTayabji. Mr. Tayabji's judgment proved anepoch-making judgment so far asthe question of bail in cases of sedition wasconcerned. For eleven years after-wards, the Tilak case was quoted as a conclusiveruling in support of the relea'seof under-trial prisoners oa bail. With Mr. Davarchanging the Gown for the Wieor it should rather be said tbe Bar for the Bench,the whole course of law was to bechanged; and Mr, J. Davar's judgment in the Tilakcase of 1908 has already beenwidely quoted and acted upon to support therejection of applications for bailBelow in three parallel columns we quote importantsentences from Mr, J. Tavablji's judgment in 1897, Mr. Davar the Barrister'sargument in 1897, and Mr. Davarthe Judge's ruling in 1908 in respect of the samesubject matter, namely, the prin-ciples on wbich bail may be granted or refused to anunder-trial prisoner espe-cially in cases of sedition. ^

TAYABJEEJ. (1897)

File1-Tilak TrialAll legislation in regardto the release of accusedparties on bail was basedupon the anxiety of theLegislature to secure theattendance of the accusedat the time the trial cameon. The leading principleof jurisprudence was thata man was not to be pre-sumed to bd guilty untilhe had had a fair trial andwas found to be guilty.But at the same timeanother leading principlethat the Judges had to bearin mind was that there•ught not to be any mis-carriage of Justice by theaccused absconding or notappearing when the case"was called on for hearing.If it was absolutely ormorally certain that theaccused would be forth-coming at the trial it wouldbe contrary to the princi-ples of Justice to keep himin jail till the trial cam©

BARST. DAVAR. (1897.)

Mr, Davar, 'Couusel for Mr.XDali applied ior bail on thefollowing grouuds, He wasperfectly prefiaved to urge that

File1-Tilak Trialthis waeomiueDtly one of thosecases in which the acoased per-son was entitled to be bailedout on more grounds than one.It was ah.inlu,td>j necessary thatthe accused should penonaUygive instructions to his Sohci-tors. Mr. Davar also laid stresson the grouadthat the Jail rulesrequired the presence of theJail authorities even whea theaccused was giving instructionsto his Solicitors, and that thedifficulty of defending the ac-cused would be still greater.He relied very strongly on theBangobasi case and on whattook place in connection withthe caee, which was the onlyprecedent which would guidehis i.ordship in the presentcase jjui'ticularly on thequestion of bail- It

woul 1 be argued in thepresent case that this was amost serious case and it was amatter in which punishmentwas for transportation for lifethougii the alternative punish-ment did not exceed threeyears, I'he only evidence iuthe pj-esent case of the articlebeing cf such a nature, aswould cause disnliectioa amongthe people, was that of MirzaAbbaa Beg, t)ie Orieujal Trana.later, who sai 1 that the words

File1-Tilak Trialand espiesaioas were of a a ex-

JUDGIlI DAVAR. (1908)

Section i^'^d) C)v. Pr. Codeleft the Judge unlimiteddiscretion. Ifc was a judi-cial discretion and it mustbe judicially exerciser andwith care and caution. Iam not in accord with thestatement broadly madethat the only considerationwhich ought to guide theCourt in deciding whetherbail should or should notbn granted, was the consideration that the accusedwould appear to take histrial. It was by no meansthe only consideration &percnt;rthe main one. Ife might beone of the considerations oran important one. But inconsidering applications inserioas cases there weremany circumstances thatmust be weighed beforecoming to a conclosiou. Itwould be wise under thepresent circumstances notto give any reason or enter

12

File1-Tilak Trial

off. In order to ascertainwhether he would be forth-coming or not it was ma-terial to consider the threeleading questions; first, asto the gravity of the offencewith which the accusedwas charged ; second, as tothe nature of the sentencewith which he might bepunished; and third, asto the evidence which wasbefore the Court to seewhether ifc was of such an•ver-whelming characteras that the accused mustnecessarily be convictedand that in order to avoidthe punishment he might3i0t be forth-coming.

tremelyj objectionable inflama-tory character such as were cal-calateu to excite feeliugs iuBritisii India. That was thewhole of the evidence recordedIjy the Magist'ate to prove thatthe articles published were like-ly to inflame and excite dis-affection and it was to say theleast n'orthlcxx. Ha venturedto submit that anybody who hadfi?iy knowledge of the Marathi

File1-Tilak Triallanguage and who read theoriginal articles, if he vxn notblinded bj/ pussion oy prejudice,would come to the conclusionthat they were not calcalated toexcite disaffection in the mindsof the people* The only groujidsn which this application could boopposed would be dn apifte/iensionthat the accused might not beforthaomitig for his trial.Another ground being that theaccused being at liberty, mighttry to do away or tamper withthe evidence for the prosecu-tion. In this ca»3 there wasno fear of that. " I ask yourLordship accordingly to e:!?er-cise your discretion vested inyou, and make an order whichwill show, that the accusedis not prejudged by thetribunals thai administer^ jus-tiee and law, &c. &c. "

into a discussion of theconsiderations weighing,with him in refusing theapplication for bail.

THE TILAK CASE.

File1-Tilak TrialThe Magisterial Proceediiig-8.

The prosecution against INIr. Bal Gangadhar Tilakwas set in nioti'onby his Excellency the Governor in Council Bombayordering the institutionof a complaintf against him and thus sanctioning theprosecution. The san-ction to prosecute is as follows: —

The first case.

Government sanction .

( Before nie )

A. H. S. Aston

Chief Presidency ^Magistrate

Bombay 24-6-08.

Under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1898, His Ex-cellency the Governor in Council is pleased to orderHerbert George Gell,Commissioner of Police Bombay or such Police officeras may be deputedby him for this purpose, to make a complaint againstBal Gangadhar Tilak,editor and proprietor of the ' ' Kesari " , a weeklyvernacular newspaper ofPoona, in respect of an article headed "Thecountry's misfortune", printed

File1-Tilak Trialat columns 4 and 5, page 4 and columns 1 and 2 page5 of the issue of thesaid newspaper dated the 12th May 1908, underSection 124 A of the IndianPenal Code and any other Section of the said Code (including section 153A ) which 'may be found to be applicable to thecase.

By order of his Excellency the Governor in Coimcil

( Sd. ) H. O. Ouin

Dated 27) June 1908 Bombay. Acting Secretaiy toGovernment.

Judicial Department

Pursuant to withinwritten order I hereby deputeSuperintendentSloane of the ' K ' Division, Bombay City Police, tomake the complainttherein referred to.

( Sd; ) H. G. Gell.

Head Police Office Bomlmy Commissioner of Police,Bombay.

24th June 1908.

Ill piiisuance of the sanction, SiiperintendeutSloane, of the BombayPolice, laid the following information before Mr. A.H. S. Aston, ChiefPresidency ^Magistrate, Bombay: —

File1-Tilak Trial

Jiifoj'mation of Supcrinlcndcnt Sloane.

The information of William Sloane taken upon oathbefore me ArthurHenry Southcote Aston Esquire, one of his Majesty'sJustices of the Peacefor the Town and island of Bombay and the ChiefPresidency MagistrateBombay on Tuesda}- the 24th day of June 1908.

1 . "I am informed and veril}- belie\e that BalGangadhar Tilak ofPoona is the editor, printer and publisher of the"Kesari" a weekly MarathiNewspaper and that the said newspaper is printed andpublished at hisI^ress called the Kesari Press situated at 486Narayan Peth Poona.

2. That the Kesari Newspaper dated the 12th May 1908which isnow produced and shown to me and marked A containsan articleprinted in the 4th and 5th columns of page 4 thereofand columns1 and 2 of page 5 thereof and headed (as translatedinto English) " Thec ountiy^ ' s misfortune . ' '

3. That a translation of the said article is alsoproduced andsliown to me and marked B.

4. I verily believe that the said Bal GangadharTilak has by thepubHcation of the said article in the 'Kesari'newspaper dated the 12th

File1-Tilak Trialof may 1908 brought or attempted to bring intohatred and contempt andhas excited or attempted to excite disloyalty andfeelings of enmity towardsHis Majesty and the Government established by law inBritish India.

5. I am informed and verily believe that severalnumbers of the' Kesari ' newspaper dated the 12th of May 1908 wereforwarded tosubscribers to that newspaper in Bombay and werereceived in Bombayb}- such subscribers and that I am advised thatthere has been pubHcationof such newspaper containing the said article withinthe jurisdiction ofthis Court.

6. That I accordingly charge the said Bal GangadharTilak, asbeing responsible for the publication in Bombay ofthe said article in theKesari newspaper dated the 12th day of May 1908,with committingoffences punishable under Sections 124 A and 153 Aof the Indian PenalCode and I prav that process mav be issued againstthe said Bal GangadharTilak.

7. That an order under section 196 of the CriminalProcedure Codedated the 23rd of June 1908 directing this complaintto be made is nowproduced and shown to me and marked C.

File1-Tilak Trial

The Magistrate thereupon issued a warrant of arrestagainst Mr. Tilakon 24th June 1908 and it was executed on his personthe same evening atBombay.

3

The Magistrate also issued a warrant on the same dayfor a search be-ing made of the residence of ]\Ir. Tilak at Poona,and for the seizure of cer-tain documents &c. The following is the text of thewarrant and the en-dorsements on it will show the manner in which itwas executed.

Magistrates warrant .

Case No. 421 of 1908.

Complainants' name.

Superintendent sloane.

Address — Bombay .(Fee-free)

No. of 190

To

The District or City Magistrate Poona, the

File1-Tilak TrialSuperintendent of Policedivision, and all constables and other HisjNIajesty's officers of the Peacefor the Town of Bombay.

Whereas information has been laid before me of thecommission of theoffence of sedition and promoting enmity betweenclasses, and it has beenmade to appear to me that the production of thefiles of the newspaper Kesaii,registers of subscribers, drafts, proofs,manuscripts, correspondence, booksof account and other documents, relating to the saidKesari newspaper isessential to the inquiry about to be made into thesaid offence.

This is to authorise and require you to search forthe said books, docu-ments, writings and newspapers in the residence ofBal Gangadhar Tilak,situated at Poona and if found to produce forthwiththe same before thisCourt, returning this warrant with an endorsementcertifying what you havedone under it immediately upon its execution.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this24th June 1908.

(Sd.) A. S. ASTON.

Chief Presidency Magistrate.

Forwarded to the District Superintendent of Police,Poona, for execution.

File1-Tilak Trial(Sd.) H. F. CARVALHO,

24-6-08. , City. Magistrate

Poona.

Returned duly executed

Davies.

25-6-08. District Superin^indant

of Police, Poona.

Returned to the D. S. Police, Poona. The warrantcannot be consideredto be fully executed until the residence of BalGangadhar Tilak at Singhgadhas been searched. This search should now be made.

(Sd.) E. CARMICHAEL,

25-6-08. D. M. Poona.

Executed. — Nothing found at Singhgad.

Davies

D. S^ Police Poona.

Returned to the Presidency Magistrate Bombay.

(Sd.) E. CARMICHAEL

25-6-08. D. M. Poona.

File1-Tilak Trial

The Panchanama { \'ide Ex. L in x\ppendix page 49-50) will show theresults of the search made in the residence of Mr.Tilak at Poona.

On the 25th of June Air. Tilak was produced beforethe PresidencyMagistrate and the following proceedings took placein his Court.

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF PRESIDENCYMAGISTRATE BOMBAY.Case No. 421 W of 1908.

Superintendent Sloane Complainant .'

VS.Bal Gangadhar Tilak Accused.

Charge— Sedition and promoting enmity betweenclasses

Sections 124 A 153A I. P. Code.Accused present in Custody.

Mr. J. D. Davar Bar-at-law and Mr. Bodas M. A. I^L.B. HighCourt Pleader for Accused.

WILLIAM SLAONE. sworn said: —

I identify the Accused as th^ person named in theinformation. TheKesari is published and sold in' Bombay. I have beenpurchasing it forseveral months. I purchased the issue of the 12th in

File1-Tilak TrialBombay.

Mr. Davar: — I am willing to admit publication andask that the casemay be tried forthwith.

Mr. Bo wen: — It is necessary to prove publication.The case forhe Crown is not ready and I apply for an adjournmentin order to call

evidence. 1 have not all my witnesses here and Ihave a case thisafternoon in the 3rd Presidency Magistrate's Court.

Order — Postponed to June 29th at 3-30 p.m.

Mr. Davar applies for bail.

Mr. Bowen opposes,

ORDER. — The application is refused. The offence inquestion is notbailable and I a.m of opinion that there arereasonable grounds for believingthat accused has committed the offence of which heis charged.

( initialled) A. H. S. A.

25.6. 08.

Mr. Davar to have permission to take copies ofinformation andtranslations.

File1-Tilak TrialMr* Dikshit and Mr. Bodas and Mr. W. S. Gandhy tohave permissionto interview accused, also Mr. W. S. Bapat and Mr,Baptista and alsoHon'ble Mr. Khare in the Police Court lock-up.

Accused to be detained in the Police Court lock-up.Copy ordered to be furnished to accused forthwith.

( Initialled ) A. H. S. A.25-6-08.

( TRUE COPY )A. H. S. AstonChief Presidency Magistrate,and Revenue Judge, Bombay.

SECOND CASE.

On the 26th of June His Excellency the Governor inCouncil in-stituted another prosecution against Mr. Tilak by'authorising the Secretaryof the Judicial Department to direct anothercomplaint being laid againstMr. Tilak, while the latter was in custody.

The following is the second Sanction to prosecuteMr. Tilak.

File1-Tilak Trial6

SANCTIOS 7 PROSECUTE.

( A. H. S.

27-G-OS. )

Under section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure1898 HisExcellency the Governor in Council is pleased toorder Herbert GeorgeGell, commissioner of Police Bombay, or such PoliceofiEcer as may bedeputed by him for this purpose to make a complaintagainst Bal Gan-gadhar Tilak, editor and proprietor of the Kesari^ aweekly Vernacularnewspaper of Poona in respect of an article, headed" These remediesare not lasting " printed at columns 2, 3 and 4 ofpage 3 of the issue ofthe said newspaper dated the 9th June 1908 undersection 124 A of IndiaPenal Code and any other Section of the said Codefincluding Section153 A.) which may be found to be applicable to thecase.

By order of His ExcellencyDated Bombay ^ the Governor in Council.

the 26th June 1908. i ( Sd. ) H. O. QUINN.

Acting Secretary to Government,Judicial Department.

P. T. O.

File1-Tilak Trial

Pursuant to the withinwritten order, I hereby deputeSuperintendentSloane of the K. Division, Bombay City Police, tomake the complainttherein referred.

(Signed; H. G. GEI

No. Case No, 421/w of 1908.

Charge (Sees, 521, 221, 222, C. P. C,;

A. H. S. Aston E)sqr.

(Altered by my charges I Chief Presidency Magistrateat v.r.^\ .

this 2nd day of July 1908. , , , ^ . ^>i^crare atBombay

Sd. M. R. Jardine. ^^^^^y charge you Bal GangadharTilak as

C. C.) follows : —

That you on or about the 12th day of May 1908 atBombay by wordsintended to be read brought or attempted to bringinto hatred or contemotor excited or attempted to excite feelings ofdisaffection towards the Gov-ernment established by law in British India bypublishing in a vernacularnewspaper entitled the "Kesari", of which you werethe Printer and Pub-lisher an article as translated into English " TheCountry's misfortune'"

File1-Tilak Trialand thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 124 A of theIndian Penal Code.

2ndly. That you on or about the 12th May 1908 atBombay by wordsintended to be read promoted or attempted to promotefeelings of enmitvor hatred between different classes of His Majesty'ssubjects by publishino-in a vernacular newspaper entitled the "Kesari" ofwhich you were thePrinter and Publisher an article as translated intoEnglish "The conntrv'smisfortune'^ and thereby committed an offencepunishable under

10

Section 153 A of the Indian Penal Code and withinthe cognizance of theHigh Court and I hereby commit you to the said HighCourt to be triedon the said charges.

29th day of June 1908. fSd.) ^-A. H. S. Aston.

Chief Presidency Magistrateand Revenue Judge Bombay.

No. Case No. 435 ,w of 1908.

Charge ( Sees. 221-222-223 C. P. C. )

File1-Tilak TrialA. H. S. Aston Esquire,

(Altered by my charges I Chief Presidency Magistrateat Bombay

"'' "°Sd'!) m!^ JaMinf ¦ hereby charge you BalGangadhar Tilak asC. C.) follows : —

That you on or about the 9th day of June 1908 atBombay by wordsintended to be read brought or attempted to excitefeelings of disaffectiontowards the Government established by law publishingin a vernacularnewspaper entitled the " Kesari '* of which you werethe Printer andPublisher an article as translated into English "These remedies are notlasting " and thereby committed an offencepunishable under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.

2ndly. That you on or about the 9th day of June 1908at Bombay bywords intended to be read promoted or attempted topromote feelings ofenmity or hatred between different classes of HisMajesty's subjects bypublishing in a vernacular newspaper entitled the '' Kesari ' ' of whichyou were the Printer and Publisher an article astranslated into English" These remedies are not lasting. "

And thereby committed an offence punishable underSection 153 Aof the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance

File1-Tilak Trialof the High Court andI hereby commit you to the said High Court to betried on the saidcharges.

29th day of June 1908. (Sd.) A. H. S. Aston

Chief Presidency Magistrate

& Revemie Judge Bombay."

11

BAIL PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT.

On the 2i'id day of July Mr. Tilak applied throughCounsel to Mr.Justice Davar presiding over the third CriminalSessions of the High Courtfor his release on bail; but the application wasrefused.

In connection with the bail application thefollowing affidavits andcounter affidavits were made.

(i; Affidavit of Mr. Bodas.

I, Mahadeo Rajaram Bodas M. A. LL. B. of BombayBrahminHindu inhabitant, High Court Pleader of this Hon'bleCourt residing atGirgaum outside the Fort, solemnly affirm and say asfollows: —

1. That on the 25 th June I appeared with Messrs. J.

File1-Tilak TrialD. Davar,Barrister-at-Law, and S. M. Dikshit for theabovenamed accused

l)efore the Chief Presidency Magistrate Bombay inthe case institutedagainst him under Sec, 124 A and 153 A of the IndianPenal Code.

2. That on a complaint filed by Mr. Sloane,Superintendent CriminalInvestigation Department Bombay, Bal Gangadhar TilakB. A. L,L. B.Editor and Proprietor of the Newspaper " Kesari "the abovenamedAccused was arrested on Wednesday the 24th June at6-30 P. M.at Sirdar Griha in the Sitaram Buildings, near theCrawford Market, andwas placed the next day on the 25th day of Junebefore His WorshipA. H. S. Aston Esquire the Chief PresidencyMagistrate for the city ofBombay, who remanded him to custody. An applicationfor bail was thenmade to the Chief Presidency Magistrate who refusedit.

3. That the said Accused was on Monday the 29thinstant chargedwith offences under Sees. 124 A & 153 A Indian PenalCode beforeHis Worship A. H. S. Aston Esquire the ChiefPresidency Magistratetor the city of Bombay.

4. That on the 29th day of June after the evidenceof the

File1-Tilak TrialProsecution was recorded the learned Magistrate onthe application©f the Public Prosecutor committed the Accused totake his trial atthe present Criminal Sessions of the Bombay HighCourt on chargesunder Sees. 124 A and 153 A of the Indian PenalCode.

5. That the said Accused, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, is atpresent incustody and has been in custody as an unde'r-trialprisoner in the DongriJail since the 24th June.

6. I submit that the release of the Accused on bailis absolutelynecessary for the proper conduct of his defence andI therefore pray thatthis Hon'ble Court will be pleased to order hisrelease on bail. Thegrounds on which this application has been made areas under:

12

Istly. That I am of opinion that the Accused has agood defenceand that if he is not released on bail the Accusedwill not be able to pro-perly instruct those whose help he wants to securefor his defence.

2ndly. That the Accused has been suffering fromdiabetes for sometime past and was under medical treatment when he

File1-Tilak Trialwas arrested.

3rdly. The said articles are too lengthy to allowthe Accused tosend instructions thereon from Jail and officialtranslations of the saidarticles used in the proceedings before theMagistrate are incorrectand misleading, that the Counsel will not be able tomake a properdefence unless the Accused had himself anopportunity of explainingthe correct meaning and spirit thereof to hisCounsel.

4thly. That the Accused is a B. A. Lly. B. of theBombay Univer-sity, a well-known author, was a Professor ofMathematics in the Fergus-son College Poona, and sometime member of the BombayLegislativeCouncil and occupies a very high position among theeducated Hindusof the Deccan.

5thly. That the question whether the said articlescome within themeaning of Sees. 124 A and 153 A Indian Penal Codeis a matter to bedecided by a Jury and till that question isdetermined the Accused shouldbe released on bail.

Solemnly affirmed at Bombay ^

aforesaid this 30th day of I (Sd.) M. R. Bodas.

June 1908. J

File1-Tilak Trial

Before me.(Sd.) E. J. Davar.

Commissioner.

(2) Affidavit of Mr. Bo wen.

I, John Guthbert Crenside Bowen residing at MalabarHill Bombay,Acting Solicitor to Government make oath and say asfollows : —

1. That I have read a copy of an unaffirmedaffidavit of MahadeoRajaram Bodas which was furnished to me on the 29thJune 1908.

2. In September 1897 the abovenamed Accused, BalGangadhar Tilak,"was tried in this Court for an offence punishableunder Sec. 124A of theIndian Penal Code in respect of the publication ofcertain articles inhis newspaper the "Kesari" and was convicted andsentenced to 18month's rigorous imprisonment on the 6th ofSeptember 1898. The LocalGovernment remitted, subject to certain conditions,remainder of thepunishment to which the said Bal Gangadhar Tilak hadbeen sent-enced. A copy of the order of Government and of thesaid condi-tions are annexed hereto and marked A.

File1-Tilak Trial

13

3. I crave leave to refer to the articles iu theissue of the "Kes-ari" dated the 12th May 1908 which is headed ( astranslated intoEnglish) " The Country's misfortune " for which theAccused hasbeen committed to take his trial at the Sessions foroffences puni-shable under Sees. 124A & 153A of the Indian PenalCode and Iam informed by the first assistant to the OrientalTranslator to Go-vernment and verily believe that in the issue of theKesari, datedthe 2nd of June 1908, another article has beenprinted which isheaded ( as translated into English ) " The secretof the Bomb "and he has sent me a translation of that article.The writer of thatarticle referred to the murder of Mr. Rand in 1897and the explosionof the Bomb at Muzzafarpur and stated thatconsidering the matterfrom the point of view of daring and skill inexecution the Cha-phekar brothers take a higher rank than the membersof the "clubof the Bomb in Bengal and that considering the endand the means theBengalees must be given the better commendation. Thewriter furtherstated in the said article that bombs explode whenthe repressive

File1-Tilak Trialpolicy of Government becomes unbearable.

4. I also crave leave to refer to the article headed" These reme-dies are not lasting" which is printed in the issueof the "Kesari"dated the 9th June 1908 and which is the subject ofthe chargeagainst the said Bal Gangadhar Tilak in case LNo.435 of 1908 in whichhe has also been committed to take his trial at theSessions.

5. With reference to the allegations in paragraph 6of the said affida-vit that in the opinion of the deponent the Accusedhas a good defenceI crave leave to refer to the said articles in theissue of the "Kesari"dated the 12th of May 1908 and to the said articlesin the issuesof the 2nd & 9th June.

6. With reference to the allegations in the saidaffidavit that thetranslations of the articles in the issue of theKesari of the 12th May1908 before the Magistrate are incorrect andmisleading I say that atranslation of the said article is being made by oneof the Transla-tors of the High Court which will be used at thetrial of this case.

7. I further say that I am informed by the LocalGovernmentthrough one of their Secretaries that if the Accusedis released on

File1-Tilak Trialbail the Local Government believe that he will usehis liberty to excitefeelings of disaffection and hatred againstGovernment and that itwould be dangerous to release him.

Sworn at Bombay aforesaid.

this 30th day of June 1908

Before me,

E. J. Dovar.

Commissioner.

14

Appendix to Mr. Bowe'ns Affidavit.

In exercise of the power conferred by sec. 401 ofthe Code ofCriminal procedure 1898 the Governor of Bombay inCouncil is pleasedhereby to remit, subject to the conditions hereafterset forth, theremainder of the punishment awarded to Bal son ofGangadhar Tilakand a convict in the Yerrowada Central prison No.1445 at presentundergoing a sentence of eighteen months rigorousimprisonment.

The conditions are these: —

That he will not countenance or take part directly

File1-Tilak Trialor indirectly inany demonstration in regard to his release, or inregard to hisconviction o-^ sentence.

That he will do nothing by act, speech or writing toexcite disaf-fection towards the Government.

Judicial Department, By order of the Governor ofBombay

6th September 1898. in Council

(Sd.) S. W. Edgerley

Secretary to Government.

I hereby accept and agree to abide by the aboveconditions under-standing that by the speech or writing referred toin the second conditionis meant such act, speech or writing as may bepronounced by a Courtof Law to constitute an offence under the IndianPenal Code and Iacknowledge that should I fail to fulfil thoseconditions or any portionof them the Governor of Bombay in Council may cancelthe remissionof my punishment whereupon I may be arrested by anyPolice officerwithout warrant and remanded to undergo theunexpired portion 6imy original sentence.

Dated the 6th September 1898. Bal Gangadhar Tilak

File1-Tilak TrialPrisoner.

Certified that the foregoing conditions were readover to the prisonerBal Gangadhar Tilak and accepted by him under Sec.401 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure in my presence.

J. Jackson

Surg. Captain.

Witness. Harry Brewin Superintendent.

D. S. of Police.

Dated the 6th September 1898.

15

(3) Affidavit of Mr. Sullivan. ]

I, Peter Sullivan of Bombay, residing at MaliarbowriPolice StationInspector Bombay Police, make oath and say asfollows : — -

1, The information in this case was filed on the24th June 1908and a Search Warrant was issued by the ChiefPresidency .lagisttateand I proceeded to Poona with the said Warrant. Onthe 25th of June1908 the District Superintendent of Police of Poonasearched in my pre-sence the office, press and residence of the

File1-Tilak Trialabovenamed Accused BalGangadhar Tilak at No. 486 Narayan Path Poona and amemo was foundamongst the papers which were then found and itcontained the follow-ing particulars viz. —

Hand book of Modern explosives by M, Eissler

( publ. Crossby I^ockwood & Sons )

Nitro — Explosives

By P. Gerad Sandford.

I was informed by Mr. Kelkar, the Editor of theMahratha News-paper, and verily believe that the said memo is inthe handwriting of thesaid Accussd.

2. The said memo was found in a drawer in a writingtable in theAccused's residence and it has been put in andmarked as an exhibitin the proceedings in the Magistrate's Court.

Sworn at Bombay aforesaid "»this 30th day of June 1908. J

(4) Affidavit of Mr. Bodas."

I, Mahadev Rajaram Bodas of Bombay, Hinduinhabitant. HighCourt Pleader, residing at Churni Road outside theFort solemnlyaffirm and say as follows: —

File1-Tilak Trial1. I have read the copy of the unaffirmed affidavitof John CuthburtCrenside Bowen Acting Solicitor to Government,served on the Accused'sAttornies Messrs. Raghavaya, Bhimji & Nagindasyesterday.^

2. With reference to para 2 of the said affidavit Isay that no previ-ous conviction could be referred to at this stageunder section 310 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code and such reference ishighly objectionable asit seems to be intended to prejudice the Courtagainst the Accused, -iv-^*

3. With reference to the third para of the saidaffidavit I say that thearticle referred to therein as "Secret of the Bomb"is not in evidence andcan not therefore be referred to. The contents ofthe article have nobearing on the present application and the Marathiheading has beenmistranslated as " Secret of the bomb ".

4. With reference to para seventh of the saidaffidavit I submitthat the statement made by the deponent on thealleged informationof an unnamed Secretary of the Local Government isunauthenticated,irrelevent and inadmissible in evidence. I alsosubmit that the alle-gation contained in the said para is not supportedby any reason

File1-Tilak Trialor evidence.

I have also read the copy of the unaffirmedaJSidavit ofPeter Sullivan of the Bombay Police served onMessrs. RaghavayyaBhimji and Nagindas yesterday and with referencethereto I say thatthe alleged memo referred to in para 1 therein wasobjected to by theCounsel for the Accused in the Chief PresidencyMagistrate's Court asbeing irrelevent and not proved but was allowed tobe exhibited merelyas an article found during search. I thereforesubmit that the contentsof the memo are irrelevent to the presentapplication and ought not to bereferred to.

Solemnly affirmed at Bombay ~j

aforesaid this 1st day of V (Sd.) Mahadeo RajaramBodas.July 1908. )

Before me,(Sd.) G. A. DAVAR.Commissioner.

Mr. N. C. Kelkar, editor of the Mahratta also madean affidavit statingthat the allegation, that he (Mr. Kelkar ) informedMr. Sullivan that thecard found in the search of Mr. Tilak's house was inthe handwriting ofMr. Tilak, was untrue.

File1-Tilak Trial

The following i^jroceeding^ took place in Court inconnection with the hailapplication referred to above: —

Mr. M. A. Jinnah appeared to make the application onbehalf of Mr. Tilakand Mr. R. E. Branson, Advocate-Greneral, Mr. J, D,Inverrarity and Mr. B. B.Binning, appeared to oppose the application.

In opening his case Mr. Jinnah briefly reviewed tJieprogress of the caseuts to Mr. Tilak's committal by the Chief PresidencyMagistrate to take histrial at the Bombay High. Court Criminal Sessions.His reasons, he said formaking that application were that he was of opinionthat the Accused wasin custody as an under-trial prisoner, and hisrelease was absolutely necessaryfor iithe proper conduct of his defence. Accused hasa good defence, but hewould not be able to instruct those whose help hewanted for his defenceif he was not released on bail. He also sufferedfrom diabetes and was undermedical treatment for it. The translations of thearticles charged to him wereincorrect and misleading; therefore, he wanted toinstruct Counsel in order togive the spirit in which those articles had beenwritten. He was a B, A., andan LL. B. : he was an author; was a professor in aCollege for sometime; hewas for a period a member of the LegislativeCouncil; and a well known man

File1-Tilak TrialJD the Deccan. To this affidavit, added Mr. Jinnah,there was a reply-affidavit.

17

Mr. Justice Davar: I have read every one of theaffidavits before comingto Court. I see in the affidavit of Mr. Bodas thathe objects to certain state-ments in the affidavit ot Mr. Bowen, and for thematter of that, in the affidavitof Mr. Sullivan. These may contain statements whichwill prejudice the casefor the Accused at the trial, and some of whichperhaps 'may not be held tobe legally admissible. Having regard to thepublicity that is given to the pro-ceedings in this Court, it is very undesirable to gointo these statements, alsoto give publicity to these statements beforehand.Therefore, I should like tohear you as if you were making this application "c.r park\ " as if you weremaking it independent of any opposition fromGovernment.

Mr. Jinnah said that his application was that Mr.Tilak be released on bail.His Lordship was aware of the two sections inquestion, and he had to deal withthis very question not long ago when the applicationto release Paranjape, theEditor of the *' Kal " newspaper, was made. Thewhole point of bail wasthen placed before the Court and thoroughly threshedout. There was absolutely

File1-Tilak Trialno ground whatever for refusing bail to Tilak. Thewhole question was whetherMr. Tilak would be forthcoming to stand his trialand to take his sentence, ifauy be passed against him. That had been laid downover and over again. HisLordship knew of the well-known judgment of the lateMr. Justice B. Tyebji. Thearguments in the case took a long time, and Mr.Justice Tyebji thought all legis-lation in regard to the release of accused partieson bail was based upon theanxiety of the Legislature to secure the attendanceof the accused at the trial.The leading principle of jurisprudence was that aman was not to be presumedto be guilty until he had a fair trial and was foundto be guilty ( Bom. L. J.Vol VIII, p. 254 ). So the whole question was in anutshell. Was there anysuggestion or any shadow of hint that there was anyapprehension that Tilakwould not come forth to stand his trial ? There wasno suggestion of this sortmade in the affidavits; therefore, he asked forTilak's release on bail; they wereperfectly willing to furnish substantial security toany amount.

Mr. Branson : I appear —

Mr. Justice Davar: I will not trouble you, Mr.Advocate- General.

Mr. Branson; Very well, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Davar, in disposing of the application,said :— Ever since he was

File1-Tilak Trialinformed that in these two cases Mr. Tilak wascharged under Sections 124 Aand 153 A, and an application for bail was going tobe made to the High Court, hehad given to the question his most anxiousconsideration. If it was only aquestion of personal feelings he would be mostunwilling to keep a prisoner,who was under-trial,°in custody before his trial:unless there were reasons whythe unfettered discretion, which was vested in theHigh Court under Section498 of the Code, should not be exercised in favourof the accused. There wasno doubt that Section 498 left the Judge of the HighCourt unlimited discretion,unfettered by any condition, and gave him power torelease an accused personon bail, pending his trial. That was a judicialdiscretion; a discretion, thatmust be judiciously exercised; and exercised withcare and caution. Mr. Jinnahhad relied on the judgment of the late Mr. JusticeTyebji. His Lordship was

18

very familiar with that judgment, aud with all thathad preceded it, and thearguments made use of by both the sides by the thenAdvocate-General Mr.Lang, and by Mr. Tilak's Counsel. He was by no meansin accord vvith thestatement, broadly made, that the onlyconsideration, which ought to guide theCourt in deciding whether bail should or should not

File1-Tilak Trialbe granted, was the con-sideration that an accused would appear to take histrial. It was not by anymeans the only consideration, or the main one; itmight be one of the consi-derations or an important one. But in consideringapplications in serious casesthere were many circumstances that must be weighedbef»re coming to aconclusion. As he had said before he had veryanxiously thought over the ques-tion, and had considered the reasons andcircumstances which guided him inmaking the order he proposed to make. He was mostanxious that the Accusedshould have a perfectly fair and an unprejudicedtrial. Accused would betried before a Jury, and in view of the publicitythat was widely given toeverything said in this Court, it was eminentlydesirable that nothing shouldbe said before the trial that would in any wayprejudice either the case forthe Prosecution or for the Accused. He, therefore,thought that it would bewise under the present circumstances, not to giveany reason, or enter into adiscussion of the considerations weighing with himin refusing the applica-tion. He came to this decision with much regret buthe was constrained torefuse bail, pending the trial.

SPECIAL JURY APPLICATION.

On the 3rd July 1908, the Crown applied for a

File1-Tilak TrialSpecial Jury being ordered tobe empanelled to try Mr. Tilak. Mr. Tilak, throughCounsel, opposed the ap-plication; but Mr. Justice Davar granted it.

The following proceedings took place in Court inconnection with thisapplication.

On Friday, the 3rd July at the Criminal Sessions ofthe High Court, presidedover by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinshah Davar, theHon'bJ.e Mr. Branson,Acting Advocate-General, instructed by Mr. Bo wen.Public Prosecutor, appeared forthe Crown in the case of Emperor vs. Bal GangadharTilak and applied for thetrial of the Accused by a Special Jury on the groundthat the case was one of greatimportance and a Special Jury would be eminentlyfitted to try the case.

Mr. Baptista, Bar-at-law, appeared for the Accusedand in the followingable speech opposed the application for a SpecialJury.

My Lord: — This is a prosecution instituted byGoyernment for a politicaloffence under the special sanction of Government. Ittherefore comos with a forceand recommendation naturally calculated to overwhelmthe defendant. Under thecircumstances we are entitled to the utmostconsideration of the Court and the mostscrupulous fairness from the Prosecution. We,therefore, ask the Prosecution not topress this application and we ask your Lordship not

File1-Tilak Trialto grant it. WJe are perfectlyconvinced, and I submit, there is and there can benot a scintilla of doubt, that aSpecial Jury would prove most detrimental to thedefence if it is em/panelled in theordinary way.I am, therefore, constrained to opposethe application for a Special Jury.

19

Id the benevolent theory of the Law the Jury isdesigned chiefly, if not exclusivelyfor the benefit and protection of the accused. Iftherefore we had made the appli-cation your Lordship would have good reason toentertain it favourably. But wedo not want it. As a matter of fact we are afraid ofthe proffered gift. TimeoDanaos dona ferentes. Why then should it be forcedupon us against our will ?But if the Prosecution insists, we are willing toyield provided the Prosecutionconsents that the majority on the Special Juryconsists of Indians conversant withthe language in which the indicted articles arewritten, viz Marathi. I submit, theProsecution can have no reasonable objectionwhatever to a Jury thus constituted.This can be secured if my learned friend exercisesthe right of challengeagainst Europeans and I shall assist him in thatdirection. If the right ofabsolute challenge is exhausted, special objectioncan bet aken and allowed byconsent on the ground that the Juryman does notunderstand the language of the

File1-Tilak Trialarticles.

This will give the Prosecution the Special Jury theyseek, and the defendant aJury of fit judges composed of Lis countrymen, whichis, after all one of thefundamental essentials in a Trial by Jury, a form oftrial which the genius of theEnglish people has devised as one of the bulwarks ofthe liberty of the people. Ifmy learned friend deliberately refuses such a fairand just proposal I must opposethe application on the following grounds.

L In the first place, my Lord, it must be rememberedthat Mr. Tilak resides inPoona, the Kesari is printed in Poona, and thelanguage of the Kesari is Marathi.Ordinarily Mr. Tilak should have been tried inPoona. Had he been tried in Poona hewould have been committed to the Poona Court ofSessions. I am aware, my Lord,that the recent amendment of the Criminal ProcedureCode has given jurisdictionto inferior Magistrates who are empowered to tryand, do actually, the charge ofsedition without any Jury whatever. But consideringthe position and personality ofMr, Tilak there can be little doubt but that hewould have been commit-ted to the Sessions in Poona as he is committed tothis Court. Had he beencommitted to the Sessions in Poona he would have theadvantage of being triedby a Judge who knows the language well and who wouldhave been assistedby Assessors who would unquestionably be Maratbas.If he were tried by a

File1-Tilak TrialJury he could under Sec. 275 claim, as a right, thatthe majority should consistof persons who were neither Europeans nor Americans,He would therebyobtain that very kind of Jury which a trial by Juryreally contemplates viz. mentahenfrom tlie place and from tlie people ivlio knowtlie language and the accused and2vould therefore he the fittest judges. This is aprivilege that cannot be too highlyprized. Your Lordship is aware that the Jury bytheir right and power of return-ing a general verdict have really become the solejudges both of fact and law asLord Mansfield and Lord Fitzzerald declared in thecases reported in 21 StateTrials, page 951, and 11 Cox Criminal cases, page41. The privilege therefore is ofsupreme importance to the Accused, but unfortunatelyhe has been deprived of thatprivilege by the prosecution. They issued a warrantfor the arrest of Mr. Tilak fromBombay as they were technically entitled to do. Inthis way they have givenjurisdiction to this Court. But even here Mr. Tilakwould be tried by a Common

20

Jury, If a Common Jury were empanelled the majoritywould be non-Europeansjudging from the list of Jurors. The list mentions5G9 Europeans and 1673 non —Europeans. The probabilities are therefore in favourof a Jury ofnon — Europeans in proportion of one to three. This

File1-Tilak Trialmight not beas good as a Poona Jury, but it is far morepreferable to the Special Jury*But this application seeks to deprive us even ofthat limited advantage. As theJury is for our benefit why should we be deprived ofthe Jury which the lawallows and we desire under existing circumstances ?There is absolutely noreason for the refusal of my offer. On the contrarya Special Jury would beXDrejudicial to a fair trial for the followingreasons: —

(a) A Special Jury means that the majority shallconsist of Europeans,judging from the list of Jurors. This list showsthat there are 242 Europeansagainst 156 Indians. In all probability, therefore,the majority in the Jurywould be Europeans. That was the case in the lastTilak trial ^and that wasthe case in all sedition trials in this Court.

(b) Europeans would not make fit Jurymen on thepresent occasion, as theywould be handicapped on account of their inabilityto understand the language ofthe alleged incriminating articles. They wouldtherefore be compelled to judge ofany possible tendency of these articles to excitedisaffection towards Governmentthrough the medium of an official translation. Now,it is a notorious fact thattranslations by the best of scholars are not verysatisfactory. Why then insist uponan imperfect medium when it is avoidable and wnen aJury of competent men is

File1-Tilak Trialavailable. This is prejudicial to the Accused.

(c) Europeans would be compelled to accept officialtranslations as correct al-though their accuracy is impeached. The Indianscould bring their own knowledgeof the language to bear upon the translations.Indeed no translations would beneeded. Is this not conducive to justice and shouldthis be delilierately discarded ?Erroneous translations would make an impressionwhich it would be difficult toremove, specially as these translations have alreadybeen published in the Anglo-Indian Journals. There are no risks of a falseimpression upon Jurors who knowthe Ian guage and therefore no danger of misjudging.

(d) In this case a Jury have to determine the effectof these articles uponthe readers of the Kesari in exciting disaffectionagainst Government. ObviouslyMarathi knowing Jurors would be by far the bestjudges of this — man taken fromthe very class to whom these articles are addressed.But by a special Jury Eu-ropeans ivould have to judge o/ the effect ofMarathi articles upon people ivho differfrom them constitutionally in a thousand ivays. Thisis condeused in the formula*'East is East and West is West." It is an extremelydifficult and delicate task,and there is great danger of misjudgment. Forexample an article on cow killingwould excite Indians to a riot. It would fall flaton Europeans. On the otherhand articles advocating seriously Bureaucratic

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment in England such as weenjoy or an attempt to abolish Trial by Jury, wouldlead to rebellion in England,but it would fall comparatively flat in Iadia«Therefore Europeans would be badjudges of the effect of these articles and yet theinnocence of tha accused wouldbe in their hands when it is avoidable.

21

(c) Lastly, my Lord, ib is impossible to close one'seyes to the fact thatthese political offences and press prosecutions arereally a struggle betwean therulers and the ruled for political rights^andprivileges, which can be obtained fromthe rulers alone. Now Englishmen belong to theruling class. There must existsome political and patriotic bias against Indianaspirations. Moreover English-men at the present moment are rather inflamed onaccount of the assassinationsin Muzaffarpur. There is therefore a real dangerthat Englishmen would beunconsciously biased against the Accused to hisgreat prejudice. These are theobjections to a Special Jury on a charge of Soction124 A. Licf th:re is a second'cJiarge under Sec. 153 A. Under that charge Mr.Tilak is accused of exciting thefeelings of Indians against the Europeans.Practically therefore the Europeansare the accusers, and yet they will sit in judgmentupon the accused. The resultis this : — On the charge under 124 A the Rulers

File1-Tilak Trialwill sit in judgment upon a sub-ject for his alleged rebellious spirit, and underSec. 153 A the accusers will sit iujudgment upon the accused for exciting hostilityagainst themselves. This isopposed to all the fundamental principles of justiceand jurisprudence. I musttherefore ask your Lordship to reject theapplication especially after the sut^^es-tion I have made for empannelling a Special Jurycomposed of the majority ofspecial Jurymen who are conversant with the Marathilanguage aud would therefore be the fittest Judges in a case of thisdescrirption.

His Lordship, after hearing the arguments, indisposing of the appli-cation, said :-*

Under Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Code aSpecial Jury is neces-sarily summoned in all offences punishable withdeath, and under the samesection in anv other case in which the Judge of theHigh Court so directs aSpecial Jury is called. Now the settled practice ofthese Courts is that in allimportant cases where the interests of the partiesconcerned required that a Juryconsisting of men who arc selected from a highersphere of life, and consequent-ly supposed to bring better intelligence to bear onthe cases before the Courtare necessarily to be empanelled, the application ismade to the Judge and, ifthe Judge thinks it right, he grants theapplication. There is no doubt what-

File1-Tilak Trialever that the cases against Mr. Tilak are importantcases from his own stand-point, and I feel in his own interest he should havethe benefit of being tried by aJury selected from the citizens of Bombay, but fromthe higher class of citizens.

Yesterday I had a murder case before me tried by aSpecial Jury in whichthe Jury consisted of three Parsees, two Hindus andfour Europeans. On theprevious days I had common juries which, on twooccasions at least had aEuropean majority. The panel summoned for a SpecialJury is summoned undercertain regulations fixed by Sir Michael Westropp,and ordinarily consists of asmall majority of Europeans, but the Nativecommunity is fairly represented.In the panel that was originally fixed for theseSessions, that was before theSedition cases were contemplated or came to thisCourt, twenty-seven Jurymenwere empanelled, out of which there are fourParsees, five Hindus and twoMahomedane and Jews.

22

The rule under which the Special Jury is empanalledis Rule 832. So there is noquestion that the Sheriff has no option when he isfixing the panel of a SpecialJury that he must have at least half the numberEuropeans.

File1-Tilak TrialHavin« regard to the exigencies of the Seditioncases and the probability ofa large number of challenges, it does appear to methat the panel of twenty-sevenout of which two or three have already been chosen,is in adequate; andtherefore an additional panel of Jurymen is to besummoned; and I will see thatin the panel that is made up for the Sedition casesthe rule shall be adhered to, butit is possible that we shall have a greaterproportion of Natives than we have now.We have now sixteen and eleven, and eight more havebeen summoned so thatthere is a proportion of five and four. The namesare picked out without havingregard to the Europeans or Natives as they arecalled. So the chances are if thereis not a majority of Natives, then at all eventsthere will be a fair representationof Natives; but that is a matter entirely more orless to the extent as to how theJury is selected. You have the Jury list fixed, andthey are selected according tothe rules obtained in this Court for many years.

I hardly think that there is much substance in thearguments addressedas to the knowledge of the language. Of course if itcomes to a conflict, then theCourt must necessarily accept the translations ofits authorized translators. Atthe same time if there is any glaring mistake ormistranslation, and if it ispointed out by Counsel for the accused, it is thebounden duty of the Judgepresiding at the Sessions to see that thetranslation is correctly placed before

File1-Tilak Trialthe Jury, and if there is a mistake ormistranslation that ought to be corrected.

I promise to give my most careful attention toanything pointed out duringthe trial. As I have said, I think it is a mistaketo resist the formation ofthe Special Jury, under these circumstances. Thesecases are of importance,and so far there has been no precedent v/here inimportant cases Special Juryis asked and refused except on very special grounds.

I have very carefully considered Mr. Baptista'sarguments addressed tome. I think on the whole, the interests of Justicewill be gained if thesecases should be tried by a Special Jury. I am quitesure that any memberof the Special Jury will come in and take his oathto administer justice andwill leave out all prejudices if he has any and allextraneous circumstancesentirely out of his consideration.

His Lordship fixed Monday, the 13th instant, for thehearing of the caes.

In the second case also ia which Mr. Tilak waecharged with Sedition,on the application of Mr. Binning, his Lordshipordered the trial to beIjj a Special Jury,

The Sessions Proceedings.

File1-Tilak Trial

( Bombay High Court Third Criminal Sessions. )

Commeuciug on Monday^ the 13fh July 1908, andcohcltidlug onWednesday the 22nd July 1908 at 10 p. m.

Before Mr. Jmtice J), D, DAVAB.Mr.

-. Branson, acting Advocate) i ^x n^•^ ^ a ¦

. , ^ . , r 1 ^^r* Tilak appeared in person to

jral, with Mr. Inveranty and > < , - i.- j x

. ' . , , ^ ^ i \ conduct nis own defence.

Mr. Binning for the Crown. ) (.

1st day — 3Iouday 13th July 1908.

Mr. Justice Davar having taken his seat on thebench, theAdvocate General Mr. Branson said : — Your Lordshipwill allow me tomention this case. I appear for the Prosecution withmy learned friendsMessrs. Inverarity and Binning, and I apply that thecharges mightbe tried together.

His Lordship : — In both cases ?Advocate General : — Yes my Lord.

File1-Tilak Trial

Advocate General : — I propose to put up the Accusedon both chargesat the same trial . In this case there have been twocharges and twocommittals made by the Magistrate on the same day inrespect of articlesappearing in the Kesari dated 12th May and 9th June1908 respectively.

His Lordship : — Do you apply for that ?

Advocate General : — No My Lord, I say that I amentitled to do so.It is not a question of amending the charges. UnderSec. 234 CriminalProcedure Code and the subsequent Sections, yourLordship will find itstated that "where a person is accused" ( ReadsSection ) . That isthe Section.

I also call your Lordship's attention to Sec. 2?)2>which provides( Rsads the Section ) . Section 234 is the Sectionwhich is directlyapplicable to the facts of the present case. Theoffences are exactly thesame. They are committed within three weeks of eachother and underSec. 234 the Crown is entitled to see that althoughthere are two separatecommittals the Judge shall try the two casestogether. From thepoint of convenience there can be no question thatit would be moreconvenient to have them tried together rather thanby two separate Juries

File1-Tilak Trialat an unascertainable distance of time. YourLordship will look at Sec.235 (Reads Section). It is quite true that theAllahabad High Court,

24

according to I. L. R. 26 Allahabad, page 195 hasheld that there must be aseparate charge for each offence. So there is. Thereis a separate chargefor each offence in this case. Lf^ok at the wording.Your Lordship willsee there are two charges ( Reads ). Now under Sec.235 I submit wecan do this. It is exactly the wording of thatsection. Section 239will not apply. It refers to cases where more thanone person is charged.

His Lordship : — Sec. 235 in the first paragraphstates that thecharges must refer to the same transaction.

Advocate General;- That expression has been thesubject of variousrulings of the Bombay High Court, and your Lordshipwill find thewords interpreted in 16 Bombay. Your Lordship willalso find theexpression dealt with by the Allahabad and CalcuttaHigh Courts. 16Bombay page 414 will supply your Lordship with aUthat is necessary.That is the case of Varjivandas r.nd at page 234Prinscep's Edition

File1-Tilak Trialwe find ( Reads ) Your Lordship would find that (has Your Lordship gotthe articles there? ) the articles impeached and thearticles upon whichwe rely to prove intention of the party begin from12th May 1908. Thispaper being a weekly paper published in Poona fromweek to weekup to the 9th June has published a series ofarticles which form the subjectmatter of the charges viz the articles of I2th Mayand 9th June and aseries of intervening articles upon which we rely asshowing that they wereall intended for the purpose of one transaction,that of creating disloyalty,disapprobation and disaffection towards Governmentestablished byLaw in India. There is sufficient authority forthis. Here are casesreported in the Allahabad and Calcutta High Courtsof the same sort.Your Lordship will find them mentioned at page 234of Princep's Commen-ary. One, perhaps a stronger case, is to be found in10 Bombay page234 ( reads ). 1 his is a very different case,because there may be veryconsiderable time between making a false charge andmaking falseevidence in support of that charge. Your Lordshipwill find two or threecases cited in the Notes at page 203 & 204 of Mr.Justice Princep's book.To this it is not necessary to refer until I hearwhat Mr. Tilak has to sayas to the applicability of Sec. 234.

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship: — The only applicability of Sec. 234is that we havetwo cases but they can not be consolidated into onebecause there arefour charges.

Advocate General:— No, My Lord, but under Sec. 153 AI do notpropose to put the Accused up.

His Lordship: Do you mean with regard to the chargeunder Sec.153A with regard to each article ?

Advocate General: — Only with reference to thesecond articled I pro-pose to put him up under two charges under Sec. 124A and on one chargeunder Sec. 153A. Section 233 provides that at anystage &c. (reads) There-fore in order to avoid the possibility of findingourselves within the

25

ruling of the Calcutta and Punjab High Courts andthe Privy Council asreported in 25 Madras I think this would be thesafest course to adopt,in order to answer any suggestion that we have donesomething orproposed to do something that is not within thewords of the Act, That isall I have to say with regard to the joinder of theCharges.

File1-Tilak TrialAccused; — With regard to the law applicable here Ithink Sec. 227is the one to be taken here.

Sections 233, 234 & 235 are the Sections under whichthe chargesare laid in the first instance before the Magistrate( Reads the Sections.Section 233 applies when the charge is first framedby the Magistrate.There is no provision in the Section by which thedifferent chargescan be amalgamated as it is proposed at present.That is my objectionon the law point. Secondly, what I have to urge isthat I thinkthe two offences may not be regarded as the sametransaction.They form different subjects altogether. It would bemore con-venient to me to have each of them tried separately.The two articlesrefer to different subjects and if they are triedtogether it might make con-fusion, if not in the mind of the learned Counselprosecuting, at all eventsin my own mind. I do not think I shall be able toconduct the defence ofboth cases together. Sections 234 & 235 arepermissive but Sec. 227 isimperative. These articles are really separate,dealing with differentaspects of the same question. On these grounds Iobject to the joinder ofthe charges.

Advocate General: — I have pointed out my Lord thatthis is not the

File1-Tilak Trialcase of amending the charges. If it were, if YourLordship will look at 226and the next Section, your Lordship will find thatit gives powers of mendingor adding to the charges. Here the two chargesremain unaltered and Ipropose on behalf of the Crown to try them bothtogether. Theonly questionis whether Sec. 234 applies in this instance. Ifyour Lordship will look toSec. 227 you will find that the Court may alter oradd to the charges at anytime (Reads Sec. 227). Now that Section has beenheld to justify a HighCourt first of all in framing a charge and thenwithdrawing it. I refer my Lordto 12 Allahabad page 551. A still stronger proof ofthe powers of the Courtto deal with these charges, as I propose to dealwith them, is to be found inSec. 230 which provides that (Reads Sec.) . It showsthat although youmay not have had the previous sanction of Governmentwhich is necessaryin 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code, still if theCourt found it wasnecessary to add a charge the only result of 230would be that that chargecould not be gone into until Government have giventheir sanction. Section235, one would have thought, is plain enough for anyone to understand whowanted to understand f Reads Sec.) I should havethought it a matterbeyond argament. But it seems from experience thatone finds argumentsare raised on points which are as clear as daylight.

File1-Tilak Trial

His Lordship :-Have you given notice of thisapplication to the Accused?

Advocate General :-My Lord. I have given notice ofthe applicationto the other side. This is not an application, I sayI am entitled to do what

^6

I propose. Sec. 235 will dissipate all difficulty.The charges under 124Aand 153 A, my Lord, will be treated as beingalternative charges, f Reads)in which case either offence may or may not beproved. In this case therewill not be four charges but in order to avoidhaving any difficulty or doubtwhich may arise hereafter I propose to proceed underSec. 233 and say thatfor the present I will not proceed under Sec. 153 Aon the first charge andthat will result in stay of the proceedings, anddischarge of the Accused butnot in acquittal.

His Lordship -.-With reference to this application Igathered from theGujarathi newspapers that this application will bemade to me to-day ; andhaving considered the possibility of hearing such anapplication made tome I have devoted considerable thought to thesubject. In this case twoseparate informations were laid before the

File1-Tilak TrialMagistrate and theMagistrate held two separate inquiries and made two

separate comnjittments. The question now is whetherthese twocases can be taken together and tried at one trial.It would be extremelydesirable from my point of view and in the interestof the Accused thatthere should be one trial and before one Jury. TheAccused is entitledunder Sec. 233 to be tried separately unless Sec,235 to 239 come into opera-tion. I have grave doubts about Sec. 235 applying tothis case. It seemsto me that there would be considerable convenienceif newspaper articleswritten from time to time can be considered ascoming within the section.I have no difficulty however in ordering one trialunder Sec. 234 providedthat the charges do not exceed three. There are fourcharges in thesetwo cases; but the Advocate General under Sec. 233proposes to stay pro-ceedings on one of the four charges . I am quitewilling to allow him to makeuse of that section and hold over for the presentany one of the charges. Ido not wish the Advocate General to be taken bysurprise and I feel itwould only be fair to the Accused and the Crown ifunder the powers vestedin me under the same section I order that such stayof proceedings mayamount to an acquittal. It is not fair that theAccused should have thatcharge hanging over him and I will order these

File1-Tilak Trialcharges to be tried in thesame trial provided there are not more than threecharges. It will be forthe Advocate General on which of the charges hemeans to proceed.

Advocate General : — I have already stated to yourLordship that I donot intend to proceed under more than three charges.I do not proposeto proceed under Sec. 153 A in the case of thearticle appearing in theXesaH of 12th May 1908.

His Lordship : — I think it is only fair to theAcused that he shouldl)e discharged from that charge.

Advocate General : — I am dealing with thatquestion. I can selectanv three charges and proceed on them and ask for astay of proceedingson the other.

His Lordship : — But that stay should be finaL

Advocate General :— That might lead to a seriousquestion whetherit do66 not amount to Auiretois Acquit,

27

His Lordship ; — That would not affect the othercharges on the otherarticles. It will apply to this article on which youpropose to hold over

File1-Tilak Trialthe charge; that would 'not affect the othercharges.

Advocate General ; — I can see perfectly well how itmay be ingeni-ously argued that it can. That is why I ask YourLordship not to passsuch order till the case is over.

His Lordship : — Have you to make that applicationbefore the case isover or after?

Advocate General: — I have made the application sofar it is an applica-tion now, I am not applying, I am stating that it ismy proposal to putthe Accused up on three separate charges.

His Lordship ; — So long as there are only threecharges I orderthat the charges be tried at one trial. You willundertake Mr. AdvocateGeneral to apply for the stay and that such stayshall be final.

Advocate General : — I simply undertake that I willnot further.prosecute. I am entitled to do that.

His Lordship : — That will be the application.

Advocate General:— Yes, when the three charges areover I shall tell'the Court as I have already adumbrated before theCourt that I do notintend to proceed further.

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship: — My present order then will be thatthe Accused willbe tried on three charges, that is one charge incase No. 16 and two chargesin case No. 17.

Advocate General: — My Lord, My learned friend Mr.Inverarity willopen this case before the Jury.

The Clerk of the Crown "Mr. M. R. Jardine" commencedto readthe charges when Accused said : ,

Accused: — My Lord, the objectionable passages onwhich the prosecu-tion is laid are vague and are not specified so thatI can not properlyconduct my defence.

Clerk of the Crown » ( Reads first chage ) Do youplead guilty or notguilty ?

Accused: — I plead not guilty.

Clerk of the Crown: — You are further charged (Reads second case )Do you plead guilty or not guilty ?

Accused: — I plead not guilly. But I think the wordson the articleson which the prosecution rely should be specified.

Mr. Inverarity: — As the whole lot of the words areobjected to I askyour Lordship to amend the charges by putting in thewhole articles into

File1-Tilak Trialthe charge. It is usual to give notice of charges tothe Accused by giving

28

"him reference to page and column of his newspaperas it appears this is notsufficient I apply for the whole of the articles tobe put in, in orderthat there may be no chance of any difficultyarising there afterwards.

His Lordship: — What is it you apply for ?

Mr. Inverarity: — That the whole of the articles beincluded in the'C larges.

His Lordship: — This means that the whole articlewill have to be readto the Jury.

Accused: — Yes, My Lord.

His Lordship: — That is what you apply for ?

Accused: — What I complain of is that the chargesare vague and thatthe whole article can not be contended to beseditious.

His Lordship: — If you think that you have notsufficient of what youare charged with, Mr. Inverrarity will put in theseditious passages.

File1-Tilak TrialAccused: — I do not ask your Lordship to do that.His Lordship: — Mr. Inverarity says he puts in thewhole article? Doyou wish that read ?Accused : — yes.His Lordship : — It may waste half a day.

Accused : — It may happen that first the Prosecutionrelies] on certainpassages and then —

His Lordship : — I understand Mr. Inverarity to saythat the whole ofthe articles must be put in.

His Lordship to Accused : — You must understandexactly the orderI am making. I am now making an order on yourobjecting to the<:harges that the subject matter of the chargeshould be set forth inthe charges themselves. That will be done and youwill now understandthat you are charged with the whole article of May12, 1908 and thewhole article of June 9, 1908 as seditious, and youare on trial on thewhole of these two articles. You will alsounderstand that I have made anorder that you will be tried in one trial for threecharges which ^are madeagainst you.

Clerk of the Crown : — The charges in the first casewill now be readf reads j,'

Clerk of the Crown. — The charges in the second case

File1-Tilak Trialwill now be read(reads) .

Accused : — The second article may be taken as read.My objectionis only to^the translations.

Clerk of the Crown : — On these charges as amendeddo you pleadguilty or not guilty i

29

Accused : I claim to be tried.

The Juiy were then called.

The names of the jurymen present were then called bythe Clerk ofthe Crown: —

James M, Mair ( Challenged by the Accused )

Nair Nissim ( Challenged by the Accused )

Bhimrao Atmaram ( Challenged by the Accused )

F. G. Wood.John Greig.Bertram Glass Hilliard.Palonji Dadabhoy Davar.

Chundulal Sitalal (Challenged by the Crown) ^

G. J. C. Hodson.Shapurji Sorabji.

File1-Tilak Trial

Claude Ureriam Biddell CChallenged by the Accused^,"

Rustamji F. Wadia CChallenged by the Crown) .

Edwin Yeo ( Challenged by the Accused) .

S. flerapson.

G. H. Mc. Causland (Challenged by the Accused).

WiliamC. Anderson.

J. G. Martiu.

Mr. W. C. Anderson was appointed Foreman of theJury.

The Jury were then sworn.

His Lordship to Accused: — Do you wish the whole ofthe articles to beread to the Jury in the course of the charge to theJury?

Accused : — No, my Lord, they may be taken as read.

His Lordship : — Of course they will be read later.

The Clerk of the Crown then read to the Jury thecharges againstMr. Tilak which were as follows: —

30

File1-Tilak TrialIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY^ .

CASE No. 16.

CroM-n Side Bombay, to ^vit. ^°^ ^^^ GaiigadharTilak are charged by the

Clerk of the Crown as follows: —

Firstly: — ^That you on or about the 12th day of May1908" atBombay, then and there being the Printer andPublisher of a certain,vernacular newspaper and entitled the '¦'•Kc'sarP\by printed words broughtor attempted to bring into hatred or contempt orexcited or attemptedto excite feelings of disaffection towards theGovernment established bylaw in British India, to wit, by publishing inBombay in the issue of thesaid newspaper of the 12th May 1908 in columns 4 & 5of page 4 and incolumns 1 and 2 of page 5 thereof, an article headedwith words havingfwhen translated) the following effect viz "Thecountrys' misfortune"and proceeding, (when translated) as follows; — "Noone" &c.

And that you thereby committed an offence punishableunderSection 124 A of the Indian Penal Code and withinthe cono-nizanceof the High Court.

Given under my hand this 13th day of July 1908.

File1-Tilak Trial(Sd.) M. R. JARDINEClerk of the Crown,

Grown SideBombay, to wit, ^°^ ^^^ Gangadhar Tilakare charged by

the Clerk of the Crown as follows: —

Secondly: — That you on or about the 12th day of May1908 atBombay, then and there being the Printer andPublisher of a certainvernacular paper entitled the " A'^^'^rz ", byprinted words promoted orattempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatredbetween differentclasses of the subjects of his Majesty the KingEmperor, to wit, by publish-ing in the issue of the said newspaper of the 12thMay 1908 in columhs4 and 5 of page 4 and columns 1 & 2 of page 5thereof an article headedwith words having ( when translated) the followingeffect viz, "Thecountry's misfortune " and proceeding ( whentranslated ) as follows: —

" No one " &c.

And that you thereby committed an offence punishableunder Section153A of the Indian Penal Code and within thecognizance of the HighCourt.

Given under my hand this 13th day of July 1908.

File1-Tilak Trial

(Sd.) M. R. JARDINE.

31

Case No. 17

Crown Side Bombay, to wit. You Bal Gangadhar Tilak,are charged by

the Clerk of the Crown as follows: —

Firstly:— That you on or about the 9th day of June1908 at Bombay,then and there being the Printer and Publisher of acertain vernacularnewspaper entitled the " Kesari ''\ by printed wordsbrought orattempted to bring into hatred or contempt orexcited or attempted toexcite feelings of disaffection towards theGovernment established by Lawin British India, to wit, by publishing in Bombay inthe issue of the saidnewspaper of the 9th June 1908 in columns 2 to 4 ofpage 4 thereof anarticle headed with words having ( when translated )the following effectviz, *' These remedies are not lasting " andproceeding (^ when trans-lated ) as follows: — " From this "

File1-Tilak TrialAnd that you thereby committed an offence punishableunder Section124A of the Indian Penal Code and within thecognizance of the High Court.Given under my hand this 13th day of July 1908.

(Sd).M. R. JARDINEClerk of the Crown.

n c-j o u X •. You Bal Gangadhar Tilak are charoredbv the

Crown Side Bombay, to wit. oi , ^ t ^ , ,. ^S'-u uyluc

^lerk of the Crown as follows : —

Secondly. — That you on or about the 9th day of Juneat Bombaythen and there being the Printer and Publisher of acertain vernacularnewspaper entitled the ^''KesarP\ by printed wordspromoted or attemptedto promote feelings of enmity or hatred betweendifferent classes of thesubjects of His Majesty The King Emperor, to wit, bypublishing inBombay in the issue of the said Newspaper of the 9thJune 1908 inColumns 2 to 4 of page 4 thereof an article headedwith the words having(when translated J the following effect viz "Theseremedies are notlasting" and proceedings (when translated^ asfollows : — ''From this" &c.

File1-Tilak TrialAnd that you thereby committed an offence punishableunder Section15 3 A of the Indian Penal Code and within thecongnizance of the HighCottzt.

Given under my hand thislSth day of July 1908.

(Sd.) M. R. JARDINEClerk of^ the Crown,

32

OPENING ADDRESS TOR THE PROSECUTION.

Mr. Invekarity, Barrister- at-Law then bt'gan hisopeningsaddress which was as follows: — May it please yourlyordship andgentlemen of the Jury. My learned friend Mr.Branson, the Advo-cate General, has had to go away to attend to a casein another court.Therefore the duty of stating this case devolvesupon me. The Accusedis charged as you have heard with offences under twosections of the PenalCode in respect of two articles which appeared inthe Kesari newspaper.The Kesari is a Marathi newspaper printed andpublished at Poona and alsopublished in Bombay, where it has a largecirculation and is sold forthree pice per copy. The first Section under whichhe is charged andwhich I have read to you is section 124A. I. P. C.

File1-Tilak Trial(Reads Section).There are three explanations to the section (Readsthe explanations^.This Section, you see gentlemen, gives full effectto what is the law ofall civilised countries. It gives the press and anyperson who choosesto write in the press full liberty to say anythingon any action of theGovernment, but it does not allow them to use thesecomments as avehicle for defaming Government. There is adefinition here as todefaming private persons and of bringing them intocontempt and hatred.You may comment on the administrative measures ofGovernment ; butwhen you go further and charge Government with badmotives, of actingwith disregard to the interests of the people and ofacting with regard toEuropeans, only that is not allowed by the law.There are several pronounce-ments of these Courts, some in judgments and some inthe form ofsummings up to the Jury. I do not propose to readthem to you as hisLordship is perfectly familiar with them. TheSection appears to beperfectly clear in itself; it distinctly states that(Reads ^. Well, there hasbeen some controversy as to the meaning of the worddisaffection, butthe first part of the section says f Reads Sectionj. That is not an exhaustivedefinition ; but I submit to you that we can veryeasily get over that byciting from the indictment in England, the

File1-Tilak Trialdefinition of what is meantby Seditious Libel (Reads) .

That is the form of indictment of libel in England.It is set out inArchibald's Criminal Indictments page 729. f readsagain.) That appearsto me to put one of the matters to be included inthe term disaffectionand it is summed up in the phrase attempting tocreate disloyalty. I amgoing to refer to the charges separately. The firstarticle is dated12th May 1908. Before reading it to you I will stateveryshortly what the Prosecution submit as the effect ofthat article.We don't want you to take separate parts of thatarticle. It beginswith a comment upon what is known as theMuzufferpore bomboutrage which is described in the paper as anattempt by some Bangalisto bomb with the intention of killing an oflScial;the bomb was thrownin a wrong carriage and two unfortunate ladies werekilled. You will findthat all stated in the article as being what theMuzufferpur outrage was .The whole of the article is devoted to stating thatthe whole cause ofthis outrage is the iniquitious character of theoppressive and tyranni-cal rule of the British in this country. That wesubmit to you is the effectof that article. It speaks of the Country'sMisfortune. What is meant by

File1-Tilak Trial

the country's misfortune ? It will be for you to sayif it means that it is thecountry's misfortune to be ruled by the British orwhether it is that Indiais coming to the same state as that in Russia, orthe state the Accus-ed says Russia is in. I shall hand you copies of thearticles as soonas they have been proved. It is sometimes difficultto follow an articlewithout it being before you. But you will have ampleleisure hereafterto study them. It begins " The Country's misfortune" (Reads down to"white official class.") In that passage the writerdescribes the detailsof the Muzuffarpur outrage and ascribes this to theperversity of thewhite official class. I think you will have no doubtin finding that theoppressive white official class means the BritishGovernment. (Reads downto " Mr. Kingsford.") That was the gentleman on whomthe attempt wasintended, f Reads down to "occur even in Russia") .As I said before, youhave to see what the real state of Russia is. Hedescribes the affairs inRussia and says oppressions have exasperated thepeople till thay havebegun to throw bombs. (Reads down to "is gainingground ") . I will pausethere and try and impress on you what the writer isthere trying to pointout. He says that British rule is entirely governedby self-interest except

File1-Tilak Trialin so far as it is bounded by the necessity ofavoiding exasperating thepeople of the country. That I say is a gross libelon the Government ofIndia and of Great Britian. It goes on to say thatsuch power must betaken out of the hands of Government and put into "our own hands. " Ourown hands there means the hands of the Natives.(Reads down to " therights of Swarajya "') . That is a word that meansone's own rule and maymean Self-Government or imperial or autocratic.There it is said thatthe Government of India are only induced to go onexactly as they choose bythese considerations. The lesson being a rise likethat of Japan in the recentwar with Russia, lesson of history. (Reads to"horrible deeds recklessly") .There is a phrase used which explains the meaning ofSwarajya. We haveit defined by himself in another article in thepaper. He says the peopleare growing stronger and stronger and they wantSwarjya. Well, Swarajyais translated by the translator as literally one'sown rule or Government,Self-Government. We have the Accused's owndefinition of Swarajya. Judgebetween the two. Well then, gentlemen, there is theKesarPx own definitionof Swarajya and it apparently means that wheneverthe people like to upset theGovernment they are entitled to do so. (Reads to"methods of the Russiansubjects," j. According to this the Kesarih.2i6. onprevious occasions warned

File1-Tilak Trialthe Government that Russian methods would beimitated by the people ofIndia if they were not careful. I think there can beno doubt that the Russianmethods must be the throwing of bombs. (Reads downto "beyond certainlimits") .These words are put into the mouths of theAnglo-Indian Officials.(Reads down to "the whole country' ') . There thewriter represents 30 croresof people in India burning with indignation and saysit is impossible notto expect some of them to commit outrages induced bythe oppressivesystem of Government. fReads down to "occasions").That, gentlmen, isa most defamatory statement against Government thatit is their desire tobenefit their own contry at the expense of theNatives of India (Readsdown to "stop this traga".) Traga is interpreted tomean inflicting uponoije's own person some injury in order to bring evilor blame upon another.

8i

That last page that I have read is a goodillustration of what the lawallows. It is particularly fair comment to makewhether bomb-throwingshould be suppressed by repressive means or othermeans are quite justified.

But what the Government say is that these articlesare a direct attack

File1-Tilak Trialon Government alleging that it is unscrupulous tosay that it is the strongdesire of Government to benefit itself to the lossof the Natives, and in anearlier part it likens the people of this country toa cat. The articlecompares the Government to the man who confines acat with suchcruelty that it leaps at him and tries to kill him.You will see from the obser-vations whether it is or it is not a transgressionof the elements which thelaw allows to be discussed of Gcvernment measures.On that part of thecase I would like to quote you some passages fromLord EHenborough'sjudgment, in the case of King Fzrsiis hsLmheitreported in II Campbell, page298 in which there is a seditious libel againstGeorge III tried over ahundred years ago, in 1810. Lord EHenborough in thatcase said (reads)Just apply the words to this article here. Does itsay that Government isactuated by good motives and is being merely misledinto errors or is itgoing a step further and insinuating that Governmentsays (Reads from" We shall practiee" to "beyond certain limits"). Ifthey do that itwould be most libellous. Further on Lord EHenboroughsays at page 402( Reads j and at page 304 he says ( Reads down to "convey ".)That really is a test of what the words convey. Whatwere those wordsintended to convey and what the probable effect thatit would have on

File1-Tilak Trialthe minds of the men who read them. Then later on atpage 405 he saysf reads down to propogate and to libel j. Just applythose words to thisarticle. Don't you think that this article isintended to convey to readersthat the only thing which comes between the peopleof India and theblessings of this country is the English rule ? Somuch for the first article.

The second article is dated 9th June 1908. I maymention to youwe mean to put in and rely on the first articlewhich you will rememberis dated May 12th and we are going to rely onanother article of May 12thand on an article of May 19th and another article ofMay 26th and twoother articles dated 2nd and 9th June 1908. I do notpropose toread them to you m extenso though they will be readto you in extensoif 3'ou wish it. I shall only read such passages aswill show you whatwas in the mind of the Accused. You will know thatthe articles which havebeen selected for this charge are only part of aseries showing thewriter's inquisitions characterisation of themethods of Government. Inthe first article the writer repudiates all sympathywith the throwingof bombs for subverting British rule. In the nextarticle, it is a mostextraordinary article with regard to bomb —throwing, it points out, andit is a most mischievous thing to do, that people in

File1-Tilak Trialother countrieshave obtained what they want by bomb — throwing- Itpoints out thatGovernment cannot prevent the manufacture of bombs,they are easyto make, they only require a few chemicals. Itsuggests in a veiledmanner that other countries have got advantages bythe use of bomband foul murders, and that bombs can be very easilymade in India. Iwill read you that article. (Reads article in\\Kesari^\ dated 9th June 1908

35

headed " These remedies are not lasting" down to "rights ofSwarajya"). Well, we call your attention to thispassage and ask you to saywhether it is or is not defamatory to the EnglishGovernment ? Then it isalleged that British Rule has been based on selfinterest and Governmentcarry it on as they like, or as it is put " aselfish administration. " Thismeans an administration devoted to the: benefit ofthe people by whom it iscarried on and not of the people of India. { Readsdown to " not got asmuch generosity as the Moguls "J. Then again it saysGovernment afterall is enriching England at the expense of India. (Reads down to"English in India not being permanent"). You see hesays were it not

File1-Tilak Trialfor this bomb — coming Government would have beenable to pursue theirobject of enriching England at the expense of India.

But the bomb has come in and prevented such a stateof things becomingpermanent. (Reads to " it is a charm, an amulet" j.What is the meaningof that? How does a bomb become a witchcraft, oramulet or charm,unless it is intended to be used? (Reads from "it isnot necessary'' downto "violent turn — headed persons''). Quite apartfrom any referenceto bombs you will find that Government is describedin the same mannerthere as the people who have a grievance to bring tothe notice of the peo-ple of England. You will see this for yourselveswhen you read the articlesthemselves. There are two paragraphs to the sameeffect that BritishRule is a curse to the country, and if that isreally the case they mustexpect to have the same state of affairs in Indiaas, the writer says, existsin Russia. The writer actually refers to the murderof the King of Portugalas resulting in having the desired effect. Does itnot appear to you thatit was a threat tc the Government of India and asuggestion tothe people of India that British Rule cannot beallowed to goon as it is at present, and that it is impossible tosuppress themaking of bombs because they are so easy to make and

File1-Tilak Trialonly want a fewchemicals to make them ? The second article is undersection 124AI. P. C. and also under Section 153A I. P. C. Onlythree charges can betried at one trial, and in this case there are twocharges under section124 A and one charge under section 153A. (ReadsSection and explanations) .You see that is a Section which makes it an offenceto write matters whichstir up racial feelings between Natives andEuropeans. This article comeswithin this Section. Well, I have read the passagesto you and it will befor you to say whether these passages are, or arenot calculated to stir upracial feelings. You jvill find that the intentionof the writer can begathered from the other articles. You will see thatin his first article hefrequently alludes to the alien rulers being white.What is the object ofthe reference to the rulers being alien, and beingwhite ? It can only beintended to stir up racial feeling between Europeansand Natives of thecountry by pointing out to them that the white classis acting in India ina manner which is directly hostile to the interetsof the natives. Withregard to the other Articles, I am not going to readthe whole of them toyou. you will be able to say if they are unfairlyselected, because they willbe put before you. I only propose to read any ofthose particular pas-sages to show that the object of the writer was only

File1-Tilak Trialto attack the actions•and measures of Government, or the policy of theGovernment itself.

Accused : — I don't think those articles can be putin to show intention^until such time as the other Articles are put in audadmitted.

Mr. Inverarity : — Under section 13 cf the EvidenceAct they areadmissible. If the Accused thinks the articlescannot be admitted inevidence at this point I will not read them now. ThoAdvocate Generalwill read them to you in summing up the case. Thereis no charge againsthim in respect to these articles. They are only usedas showing what wasin the mind of the printer and publisher of these Aitides when he publishedthem. Section 14 of the Evidence Act is the oneunder which we shalltender them and we shall ask you to use them in thisway. Section 14,says ('Reads Section 14). We say that this Articleis one of extremehostility to the Government as a Government. Youwill find the illustra-tion to that Section is exactly to the point (Readsillustration E.> Thereare many other illustrations which are alsoappropriate, but that is the onewhich is most appropriate. Here is a writer who ischarged with defamingGovernment and I have referred to one article as

File1-Tilak Trialshowing what is Accused'sidea of what is "Swarajya." Gentlemen, I have notbeen too long. I haverefrained from reading long judgments and longsummings up. I will leavethose to my learned friend the Advocate General andto His Lordship.There are three charges which will claim yourattention. Two of them underSection 124A. and one under 153A. It might beconvenient to you to havewith you copies of these tv/o Sections. With hisLordship's permission I willhand to each of you, gentlemen of the Jury, copiesof these two Sectionsso that you will be able to see for yourselves whatthe words really are.The words are so clear that I don't think you willwant anyone to explainto you what they mean.

Advocate General : — I tender, my Lord, [thesanction to prosecutein this case. CExhibit A.)

The Advocate General : — We will now call thewitnesses for theProsecution and my learned friend Mr. Binning willexamine them.Mr. Bhas ker Vishnu Joshi was then called.

EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION.—

First Witness: BHASKAR VISHNU JOSHI

Examined by Mr, Binning^ Bar-at-Law,

File1-Tilak Trial

Ol What is your name? — Bhaskar Vishnu Joshi. O. Youare firstassistant to the Oriental Translator? — Yes. O. Youare a B. A. of the Univer-sity of Bombay? — Yes. Q. Do you recognise thesignature of this document?— Yes. Q. Whose is it? — It is that of Mr. H. O.Ouinn, Acting Secretary toGovernment Judicial Department. O. It is thesanction to prosecute in thefirst case? — Yes. Mr. Binning: My Lord, I put thatin. His Lordship: (toacccused) Have you any objection to this goingin?-No, my Lord; I have noobjection to its going in. (Ex. A.)

37

O. You see this other documeut giving sanction forthe other prose-cution? — Yes. Q. Is that the signature of Mr.Quinn? — Yes. It is dated 16thJune 1908. MrrBinning: I tender it. (Ex. B.)

jNIr. Binning: — I want to show him the signature atthe end of both thedocuments and ask him to prove Mr. Gell's signature.To witness: Do yourecognise that signature? — Yes. It is that of theCommissioner of Pohce. O.You produce this newspaper-the Kesari oi the 12thMay 1908? — Yes. O. Onpage 4 and 5 you see an article, which youtranslated? — Yes. O. You alsosee the official translation? — Yes, I do. His

File1-Tilak TrialLordship: You received thatnewspaper in the course of your duty? — Yes, myLord. Mr. Binning: I tenderthe newspaper and translation. (Ex. C.)

His Lordship : You translated the article. How is itheaded ? — It isheaded 'The Country's Misfortune '. Mr. Binning: Yousee the otherarticle in the Kesari of the 9th June ; did you getit in the course of yourduty as assistant to- the Oriental Translator toGovernment ? — Yes. Mr.Binning: Will your Lordship direct that if there areany witnesses in thiscase in Court they should be asked to leave ? Mr.Inverarity : If there isany witness assisting the ^ Accused in his defencein Court, I have noobjection to his remaining. It was stated that Mr.N. C. Kelkar washelping the Accused and was witness. ]\Ir.Inverarity : I have no objectionto his remaining. (Ex. D.)

Mr. Binning : You see columns 2 and 4 of the articleheaded ' Theseremedies are not lasting ' in the issue of the 9thJune? — Yes. O. Youproduce the Kesari oi the 12 th of May ? — Yes. O.You see an article incolumn 3 of the page 5 ? — Yes. His Lordship : Whereare they ? — Theycame under the ' Editor's Stray Thoughts ' and theyare 3 and 4 of thesenotes. The articles begin with " Since thecommencement of the bombaffair". Mr. Binning : I tender this my Lord. The

File1-Tilak TrialAccused : I objectto the articles going in as proving intention. Theymay go in as showingthe circumstances under which the article waswritten. I refer your Lord-ship to Mayne's Criminal Law page 522. In the lastKesari case manyarticles were put but not as -showing intention.What I say is».that thesearticles can go in to show the surroundingcircumstances under which thearticle was written but they cannot be put in toprove intention.

His Lordship : This question has been argued inprevious cases, andI shall admit them for the same purpose for whichthey have been admittedin previous cases. (Ex. E.)

Mr. Binning to witness : Do you produce the Kesariof the 19th Mayand do you see a IMafathi Leader on page 4 Columns 4& 5 and Column 1 ofpage 5 ? — Yes. How is it headed ? — A double hint.His Lordship: Is itan article?— No, my Lord, it is the leader. j\Ir.Binning : I tender thearticle and translation. (Ex. F.)

O. Do you produce the Kesari ol the 26th :May 1908 ?— Yes. O. Doyou see columns 3, 4, & 5 of page 4 and do you finda Marathi leaderin these columns headed " The Real Meaning of theBomb." —

File1-Tilak Trial

38

Yes. Mr. Binning: — My Lord, each paper goes inwitti the foot note showingthat it was printed and pnblished by the Accused.(Ex. G.)

Continuing after hnich Mr. Binning proceeded withthe examination.Q. Do you produce a copy of the Kesari dated 2ndJune 1908? — Yes. You seethere in cohimns 3, 4 and 5 of page 4 a leaderentitled 'The Secret of theBomb'? — Yes. O. That came to 30U in the course ofyour duty? — Yes. Mr..Binning: I tender that, my Lord, with the officialtranslation . (Ex. H.)

Mr, Binning: There is only one more. I show you Ex.D in this case.The Kesari of the 9th June and in the 2nd and 3rdColumns of the pages5 do you see an article? — Yes. Q. is it a leadingarticle? — No, it is amongst"Stray thoughts of Editor." o7 What note is it ? —It is note No. 11 andbegins "the EngHsh are openly an alien Rule". Mr.Binning: I put in thearticle and translation. (Ex. I.)

His'Lordship : — Does the Accused wish to ask thewitness any question ?

CSOSS-EXAMIKATION OF THE WITNESS BY MR. TiLAK :—

File1-Tilak TrialThe translations that you have put in, have you madethem yourself ?— Theyare High Court Translations. Can you vouch for tkeiraccuracy ? — The originalsare not here hut I can vouch for their accuracy.Have you compared them your-self with the original ? — Yes, I have. His Lordship: All of them ? — No myLord, One I did not get. His Lordship : Which wasthat ? — That was of the26th of May. Excepting that one I compared them all.His Lordship : That isEx. G. Q, Did you translate all of them before .' —Yes, Q. Did the two transla-tions diflEer ? — My translations differ in minorrespects from those of the HighCourt. You have before yoa the High Courttranslation. Is it to be preferred toyours ? — ^Yes in most cases, Q. Have you got yourown translations with you ? —No. Mr. Branson intimated that they had been sentfor. His Lordship to Accus-ed : Which translation do you want ? — The originaltranslation of the article of12th May. Q. Now take the original translation Ex. Hdated 2nd June 1908.Is that the official translation ? — Yes. Q. Can yougive us the date of the transla-tion ? — I cannot remember. Q, You have said thatyou have translated. Can younot give the date ? — No, I do not remember. Q. Canyou tell me that that was thetranslation before Government when Government gavesanction to prosecute? — No,I can not say that. Q. At all events it was preparedbefore the case came beforethe Magistrate ? — I am not authorised to sayanything about that. Q, You

File1-Tilak Trialput a translation in the Magistrate's Court ? — Yes,Q. So it was made before the25th of June ? That was the date of the Magistrate'sproceedings. So it wasprepared before that date. (The original translationmade by Mr. Joshi was hand-ed to him and Mr. Tilak continued hiscross-examination,) How do you translate|5rT&percnt; ^^ ? — The country's misfortune. How doyou translate ifr=^\ fwj\ r —European Ladies. In the Official translation what isthe translation ofinnocent white ladies ?— 3TI=^- Q. What does jtt^mmean in Marathi ?Can it be translated in any other way ? — I do notknow Q. Does it apply to com-plexion or colour ? — I do not understand thedifference. Q . Could you say iftfr

39

fT^rfr f^^r 3T[^ ? — No. Q. Which translatioa wouldgive the sense better ?" White '' or '• European " ladies ? — Both wouklconvey it better. Q. Better ?Equally. The only thing is that the word white ismore comprehensive. Q. Howcan white be more comprehensive ? — I cannot aaswerthat question. Q. Thenyou translate it yourself as European ? — Yes. T putin the marginal note that itliterally means white. Q. You translate the wordjfFTF with a marginal noteshowing that the literal meaning is white ? — Yes.Q. In your official capacityyou are required to read the vernacular papers ? —

File1-Tilak TrialYes. Q. In expressingcurrent political ideas many new words have to becoined in Marathi ? HisLordship: In expressing what ? — The accused: ModernPolitical Ideas; (to witness)and sometimes in order to clear up the meaningnewspaper writers insert theEnglish words after the Marathi translation ? —Y'es. Q. Just a few lines belowthat phrase, you find, ( reads from the Marathi ).After using the word 3TR^fr^f[ it is the practice to write afterwards "Bureaucracy '' ? — Yes. Q. Whatdoes that English word stand for according to you ?— srf^^rff ^jf' Iôt forwhite Official Class ? — No. What does arRl^r^r ^^fmean in English ? — OfficialClass. And if you have to join the idea to ' rulingclass ' could you express icif you say Tlj ^ ^ ^ .df srRl^fr ÎT ? Will that do? — Yes; it may mean EnglishOfficial Class. If you want a synonym for ^Tf^^TRIîf will it do if you expressit by English ? — It will express the idea inconstructive manner. It will not bea synonym, for it will express the matter in anotherway. Q. In another way ? — •

Yes.- We say ( 1 ) TTRr Brfwrd ^h { 2 ) m^jrx arf^Rf^ ( 3 ) t^^^ 3Tf^^r^f ^n

( 4 ) ?:i7?T^rTr arnrÎU îf do they meanBureaucracy ?— No, not bureaucracy.His Lordship : There are four expressions ; do theymean the same thiu!? ordifferent things ? — They mean the same thing butnot bureaucracy. HisLordship : Then what do they mean ? — They mean ( 1

File1-Tilak Trial) Ruling Official Class ( 2 )White Official Class ( 3 ) English Official Class &{i) Official Class in power. Q.You have said, you have rendered bureaucracy by^?:^rTf SThf^rff ^f( ? — ô, theadjective is superfluous. Q. Class of officialsmerely ? — The (British) Class ofofficials. Q. What is the meaning of the lattersyllable in the word ?:rj<7^rrf^TT^^rcf ^jf ? — I am not well practised interminology, Q. Does it mean rulingOfficial Class ? — No. Q, The word bureaucracy, doesit not convey the idea ofruling Class ? — No, I do not think so. Q. Yoa do'ntkaow ? — No. Q. In the wordAristocracy does 'cracy' convey any idea of rulingclass? I cannot tell you the mea-ning of Aristocracy. Q. My question is, does thisconvey the idea of the rulingClass ? — No. Q. Does the word Plutocracy convey theidea of ruling ? — I do notknow. Q. Do the word ^rRr^fff îf convey the idea ofboth Europeans andNatives?-3Tfv:j^[fr "Officials",and ^jf "Class."Q.Dothe words include botbj Europeansand Natives ? — Yes. Q. If you want to confine it toEuropeans it would have tobe qualified by an adjectivs ? — Y'es. Q. How do youtranslate the word Despo-tism .?— ^3fjfr ^LrT^TT^rrTf. Q. How do youtranslate the word tyrannical ?-^în- Q-How do you translate ths word oppressive ? — "^cyiffQ. How do yoa translate theword coercive ? — Where does it occur ? I do notwant to be examined in Englishwords. His Lordship : Do you not know the Marathimeaning of the wordCoercive? — Yes. "Then give it," Witness: — Ooercive

File1-Tilak Trialalso means 153:1ft. Q- How-would you translate the word repress! v-e ?J Icannot give meanings of all kinds

40

of words off hand. I will be able to give themhetter'with a dictionary. There areshades of differences in meanings. His Lordship ;Give the meaning if yonknow and then you can refer to the dictionary. Whatis the Marathi \vord forJL_ repressive ?— There may be different words ; Imay give one of them.

His Lordship : Give the ordinary meanings of theword repressive. Wit-ness : ^fTRirfr is the noun, and ^q^^r? ^g^ it llCl^ I ^^^ adjectives. Q. This is anewly coined woi*d ? — Yes. His Lordship : You say,it is a new word ?— Yes myLord, it is a coined word. Q. You say "• Julmi " canbe rendered by tyrannical,despotic or op(«r^,ssive ? — Yes, but in everycontext we must choose. It may bein different contexts. Q. Not except according tothe context ? — That you maydo if you like. Q. Now in describing the situationof a country in what sense isthe word despotic used ? — Where it is ruled by adespot. His Lordship : How ?— When it is ruled by a despot or by despoticofficials. Q. Is there any differencebetween despotic officials and tyrannical officialsor between despotic monarchand tyrannical monarch ? — There may be, I am not

File1-Tilak Trialaware of these minute differ-ences. Q. According to your opinion despotic monarchis the same as tyrannicalmonarch ? — Yes, as far as I can say. I have nodictionary with me. Q. Have, you ever come accross the expression '' A despoticrule need not necessarily beI tyrannical" ? — I have not. His Lordship : What ?—I do not remember to havecome accross any such expression. Q. Now suppose Igive you that expression.Will you translate it in Marathi ? "A despotic ruleneed not be necessarilytyrannical "— ^^jfr TrT?7Ti:rfr ^în=Ci=g 3Tg;#Tllf^ 3T« ^rfr- Q. How will youtranslate Aristotle's dictum " Tyranny is theperversion of Monarchy " .'— ^^fTn^T?:rni f\ TJ^^rlW, ^^X'^l RT^W 3Tr|.^ Q- I willtake the words aristocratic,absolute, arbitrary. How are these words rendered inMarathi r Absolute, trans-late that ?-3Tf&percnt;?ff&percnt;rT. Q. Arbitrary ?— I cannot give you one word for that. Q.Never mind, give your rendering /—Should 1 not beallowed to use my dic-tionary ? I may otherwise be giving incorrectmeanings. 1 can explain theword arbitrary better in English than in Marathi.His Lordship : Give what youknow. Witness : I cannot give one word. His Lordship: Explain it in Marathi.Witness : I can explain it better in English. I mayhave to give more than oneword. His Lordship : Give them. Witness: Tqr^r H#-cIÎf f arÎ or ^^, ^?:i«the Sanskrit woid. His Lordship : Now we haveautocratic ?— It is also 3THqi&percnt;a".What is uncontrolled ?-lt is also a^H^ji^rT. What is

File1-Tilak Trialirresponsible ? — &percnt;:Tr^R^^.There is one more word. How will you translateimperialistic ?— ^r^Iff ?P q i ^ |.Now how will jou translate a sentence like this ? —His Lordship: I do not wishto hamper your Cross Examination but I want to knowif in the articles thereis a description of despotic rule and the questionis how^ are these things to betranslated. Do you dispute the translations ?Accused — Yes my Lord, these wordshave been mistranslated and even the officialtranslation is wrong.

Q. How will you translate ?— " The Government ofIndia is a despotism tem-pered by public opinion in England" ?—l&percnt;^^H^?:^n: mcSraH^Tl^ ^f^T^Tm^if ^(^ ITF^Sli^jfr T3:?ft=t j:\1^ ^\\. Q. what is thetranslation of the word m«jf^ ?-Turnheaded.How will you translate the word fanatic ? — There isnot one word. Q. Supposingyou want to coin a word ?— I can^give you a hundredwords which wouJd convey

41

the same idea ; the word is Ghazi. Q. Even if it isdifferent from its regularmeaning ? — I have translated as Ghazi.

Q.]Deprived of its religious significance how willyou translate?-! do not know.His Lordship : What do you say of a man who iscalled a fanatic ? — Wl^f^'^ orr&percnt;?-r might do. Will you translate BTTcrrfpfr

File1-Tilak Trial••' — Violent-headed man. Do you knowthat aTTHcTrat is a felon ? — I have not comeaccross that. Q. Can you give us themeaning of the word in Sanskrit : who are called3TnT?II?fT iu Sanskrit ? — I donot know. Accused : There is a Sanskrit .dictionary.Witness : What do youwant to know ?— You will find in the personsmentioned there that felons are oneof these ? — There is the phrase given there. Q. Iwant to know what are arirnn'sfr*There are six classes mentioned in dictionaries.Poisoners, persons infatuatedwith weapons, persons crazy with wealth, persons whodeprive a man of his wife.— Yes these may be known as arrrTrTr^r. His Lordship: What dictionary is that ?Sanskrit into English by Waman Shiva ram Apte. Q.Then 3TrrTrrr?n is a strongerword than Jfi^Jiqr^ ? — Yes. Q. It might be borrowedin Marathi ? — Yes, but notnecessarily in the same sense that most people useit. Molesworth gives the word'STTrTrTI^'r as a violent turnheaded man, Q. Youhave said in one place that Moles-worth's is an antiquated dictionary ? If we want astronger word than the Ma-rathi form then we go to Sanskrit. The one isstronger than the other ?—( No reply from witness ). His Lord-ship : Is oneform stronger thanthe other ? — I would with due respect ask yourLordship to decide it yourself.Q. In ordinary writing 37T?TrTT?fT conveys the moreforcible idea ? — Yes. Butvery few people will understand the wordarfrTrTF-Tf- It is not Marathi. Q. Boyou know we often quote this verse ^TTrmTR^ <*^'C,,

File1-Tilak TrialManu VII. 41 ? — It is gener-ally quoted. I am not aware that this is frequentlyquoted. Q, In this countrythe word is rendered felon ? — Yes, along with someother words. Q. Is notfelon a stronger word than fanatic ?— I cannot judgeof these fine distinctions.It would be very risky to judge. Q. You know that inwriting on modernpolitical matters we have to coin difi:erent wordsto express difiEerent meanings ? —Yee. Q. Sanskrit words have to be borrowed to coinsuitable words forEnglish expressions as there are no Marathiequivalents ?— For the matter ofthat in industrial and scientific departments verymany words have to be coined.Q. How will you express in Marathi the followingwords, State ?— TR?! or ^?:^?:.Government ?— ^^^j^^ 5fn^:rR:i&percnt; or if theabstract meaning is intended ?:i7?rT5(&percnt;-I cannot give the equivalents of each of thesewords. I cannot go into the subtledifferences of these words. Q. Can administration bereferred to as bX^K ?~No. Q. Rule is ?— ?:TTq. Q. Sway is ?—^J:\l^ or ^q^.Q, Take these three Eaglishwords, ( 1 ) Manliness ( 2 ) Vigour & ( 3 ) Sense ofhonour, as qualities of aliving or ruling nation. How would you translateMaaliness ?— if^mTiTr or qlr^.Vigour ?— ^ifljc^. Sense of honour ?— arf^WR. Q. Isnot &percnt;1T the abstract wordfor sense of honour ?— No. ^3T means a differentthing altogether ?Q. Is it never used for sense of honour ?— I havenot heard it so used. Q. Nei-ther in Sanskrit nor in Marathi ? — I do not know

File1-Tilak TrialSanskrit. Q. And you won theJagannath Shankarset ^^Sanskrit Scholarship ? Howwould you render this :5T ^"jT^T ^ff ? — I am not aware that it means senseof honour. I would trans-late it energy, spirit. Q. One Who would not brookinsult. ^riT^r ia a man who

42

would not brook insult ? — I would translate it as aspirited man. Q, Willyou please render this ^ ^^^^€r JPJrTJTT^TT V(B^ &c.? — I cannot translate that.His Lordship : What do you understand ? Witness : Iunderstand the meaning andknow the construction, but can not translate it. Q.Then you know it ? — That isanother matter. Witness: — Your Lordship will knowthat it is a Sanskrit sen-tence. I may translate it to-morrow if you give metime. Q. You can translateMarathi sentence?, can you not ? How do ^youtranslate this ;f ^jf^t ^TTf V(^^<1TW^r^i75n" - — That is also Sanskrit. It is fullof Sanskrit. Q. I have givenyou Marathi words ? — I know that it is a Marathirendering of the Sanskrit. Q.Do you know that it occurs in the 4th StandardReading Book ? — I can not say.His Lordship : You can ask necessary questions butdo not ask unnecessary ques-tions. Q, How will you render the word ^?TrT ? —Indignation. Q. How willyou render the words : ^:Jg\^ ^RTJT ? — Afflictedwith sorrow. Q, Not indignant

File1-Tilak Trialby sorrow ?— Xo. Afflicted with sorrow. Q. How wouldyou render the word ^^—Passionate anger. That is the meaning given in thedictionary I am using. Q.You must stick to the dictionary whether it suitscontext or not ? — No. I do notmean that I am guided by the dictionary. Q. How willyou render the word9TI&percnt;?r ? — Vehemence. It also means angrypassions, passions of rage, Mr. Tilak :I do not want you to read from the dictionary.Witness : I have ' made the trans-lations of these myself from the dictionary. Mr.Tilak : I think that might godown in the evidence. Q. To which dictionary do yourefer ? — I have usedthree dictionaries for the rendering of the words ofthis article namely Molesworth,Candy, Apte and Monier Williams but the latter veryrarely. Accused — Apte's isthe dictionary I gave you just now ? — Yes. Q. Ofthe renderings you have givenin translations from the dictionaries you selectedthe best ? — Yes. Q. New mean-ings are being assigned to words, did you take careto look to that .5— Who isassigning them ? Mr. Tilak : the writer, q. If thewriter wanted to assign newmeanings to the words you do not care about that .?—I do not know the writer'smind, I do not care about it. Q. And yet you knowthat good many wordshave to be coined in Marathi to express new ideas ?—Yes, I know that. Q. Takethe article of 9th June in the original. How willyou trans-late this in Marathi ?—*'¦ The Evil Genius hauntingthe man " g? 51&percnt;,

File1-Tilak Trial'Tm'Erp:^ TRfrm'T gm^ro^r ^m^^r. Q, Evil Genius is ^f (?:, ifrT- How will youtranslate the words ? — Evil Genius means ijrT- HisLordship: — How did youtranslate first ?—^ 5f|^, Q. Genius in the sentenceis spirit, e. g. the one thatfollowed Socrates ? Please give the definite meaningof this ^T&percnt;m^^T TTJT »frr^Hi^^ fr^ ? — A fiend haunted or pursued Socrates.Q. In the translation wouldan evil genius haunted Socrates be better? — Whatevil genius? Ordinary evilgenius or his own evil genius ? His Lordship.— Canit be translated like that ? —Yes, it may be translated as evil genius. Q. In thescond sentence in the articlewe have ^cRTTfr^ *f^ TT^^ ^l ^&percnt;&percnt; &c.can that sentence be rendered *' Theevil genius of repression seizes the Government ofIndia every five or ten years?" —Seizes is a free translation, it means catches holdof. Q. of What ? The body ofGovernment ? — It is a free translation. Q. How doyou translate seize in Marathi? —^T^' Q- T^R^ is not seized ? — It is a fabricatedmeaning. Q. Two or three linesbelow we find ?f^ JTn&percnt;^ ^?T^H 5rT^. What doebJflf^^ niean ?— Do you want the

43

literal meaning or the intended meaning ? It is notused in its literal sensebut in its suggestive sense. It may mean hauntedpersons. Literally it meansone versed in incantations or one who recites

File1-Tilak Trialcharms. Q. Refer to the officialtranslation; it is stated in the marginal note thata Mantra is a Vedic text ? — Yesversed in incantations also means one versed inCharms or Vedic Mantras.Q, In what sense does the writer use it, VedicMantra or^ Charm ? — It meansa reciter of Charms or the Vedic Mantras, Q. Here itdoes not mean that ?Translate JTrT^S ? — Who has fallen from his'vows,or his observances. Q. Doesit mean that you have to keep up this in order thatthe Mantra may by eftective ?—Yes. Q. In the official translation it is " abjuredtheir ideals ? "—It is thesuggestive sense. Q. Is it correct according to thecontext P Does it correctly re-present the context ? — Ye3, I think it does. Q.After the same line we have 53-lo5T?. "What is your rendering of that ? — Fiendsswarming everywhere. Q. Inthe Marathi it is ^gsioSTJ and refers more to actionthan to numbers ? — To both.Q. According to the context to both ? How can thatbe ?— I can not say. Q. Can notit be rendered actively ardent or ardently active ?— It is very far-fetched. QIs it not correct in a far-fetched manner ? Downbelow you have theword f^^r. What does that mean ? — Infatuation ofthe mind. Q. How wouldyou render in Marathi ''error of judgment '"? — Ishall have to coin a word, itwill take some time. His Lordship: — If you wereasked to translate error ofjudgment in Marathi how would you do it ? — I musttake some time to think.The idea is very complicated. There is no Marathi

File1-Tilak Trialword for "Judgment."" Error '' I can translate, but Error of judgment iswithout care, thought anddeliberation; I can not translate. Q. If we can notfind a real word for thatwe have to use a coined word for it. We newspaperwriters can not wait.Suppose you have to write an article in a hurrywould you be able to spare timeto find a word ? — I am not a writer of articles. Q.Will you be able to give us. the word to-morrow ? — Yes, I shall try. Q, A fewlines below you find =33^°How will you render f &percnt; w =555^1: ?— Becamefatuous. Q. Use the verb forthe word ^[as€i; do not translate it by two words,use the verb ? — The literalmeaning is " discharged from its place. " Not movedin a wrong direction ?— No,I can not say that. Q. Now I put it to you, can itnot be erred in their judg-ment ?— No. Q. How do you render the word"Decentralization of power"?—STT^^Trfsr^nTiff. Q. On the other page just aboutthe middle we have iia^im?tW ^m^rff WT 7J^^ ^^^T ?f ^t^^ fnfr ^^m rT?TR fmsnffw- it is in thesecond column. The English translation at the bottomof page 2, seven or i<lines from the bottom. Can it not be rendered bydecentralization ? — No " Decen-tralization " would not suit the context. Q. I havesaid f^vnTJTf and not ^t^afr.What is the difference between the two ? — Thedifference between the two isthat R^lJTJfr has been used in the sense of generaldecentralisation but not gr^^f-Q. Is decentralisation used here as a coined word ?

File1-Tilak Trial— Yes. His Lordship: What isthe coined word srRl^TTflWT'ift- It is a coinedword. Q. It can never berendered arfwTI^T ^i^^ ?— I can not say. HisLordship: It cannot be renderediby the word ? — No, I do not think so,

( Case adjournod till Tuesday Uth July ).

u

2nd clan Tuesday l^tli July 1008.

The Jury having answered to their names, Mr. Tilakaddressed HisLordship and said : —

May I mention a matter, Your Lordship ? Somecompositors and prin-ters have been summoned here from my press at Poonaand I believe theyare required to give evidence as to my being Printerand Publisher of theKesari. I have already admitted that before theMagistrate. These men"have to get the Paper out and if they are summonedfor me and not forsome other purpose I suggest that they might bedischarged.

His Lordship: — I have no doubt the Advocate Generalwill release themas soon as he can.

Mr. Branson: — The accused has not admitted in theMagistrate's Court

File1-Tilak Trialor anywhere else that he is Printer and Editor ofthe "Kesari". If he willdo so now it will save a lot of time.

His Lordship'. — I do not think it advisable to havethat statement madebefore the proper time.

Mr. Branson : — If I get the names of theseparticular witnesses, I will callthem as soon as I can.

Accused: — Offered to supply the names. Examinationof witness Joshicontinued : —

You remember you told us yesterday that the Marathiin the originalfor Decentralisation could not have meantDecentralisation. I show you anarticle in the Kesari dated 17th March onDecentralisation.

Advocate General: — Do you propose to put it in ?

His Lordship to accused: — I ought to tell you whatthe result of yourdoing so will be. If you put in anything that youhave used during the courseof cross-examination you will be deprived of theright of replying to theCounsel for the prosecution.

O. Take the following sentence : — arfwrRrf^^rTO—.^is-cfn: do thewords convey the same meaning ?

No answer from the Accused.

File1-Tilak Trial

His Lordship : — Are they used there in the sense ofdecentralisation ofpower ?

A. It means I think apportionment of power,

O. It does not mean decentralisation ?

A. I cannot say now7

His Lordship: — Why cannot you say now? Will you saywhat you think?

45

Witness : — They are used both as apportionnieiit ofpower and decen*tralisation of power.

Advocate General to iVccused: — You are readmg fromthe same article?I do not want to raise any unnecessary objectionsbut you must notmake use of the article, it is something not beforethe Court.

His Lordship: — He is using the writing for thepurpose of cross-examination.

Advocate General: — With due deference to yourLordship, 1 do notthink he can do it in that way.

His Lordship: — Supposing he proposes to show some

File1-Tilak Trialof his writino-sto the witness for the purposes of cross-examinationis he not entitled touse the article ?

Advocate General: — I am not aware of any provisionof the EvidenceAct or of any law which entitles him to do that.

His Lordship to accused : — Perhaps it will be aswell to put the witnesssuppositious sentences and examine him on them,'

Accused: — Yes my Lord I will put hypotheticalonesii'

O. If 3^ou have a sentence like this what does itmean : vdfkWi ^W^IX

A : The apportionment of power between theProvincial Governmentand the Supreme Government.

O. Take the Official translation of the article ofthe 12th of Mayand the original. In the original you see t?rr9 t^^.How do you translate it ?

A. The Coimtry's Misfortune?

Q. Now come to the 5th line of the translation. Yoiifind thewords "inspire many with hatred," how do youtranslate hatred ?

A — mz-^nr.

Q — And how do you render 5^?

File1-Tilak TrialA, — It means hatred or enmity.Q — Is there any difference between T&percnt;^^Krand ?A — There is no difference? One is a Sanskrit word.O— And the other ^T\€l ?A — That is a Marathi word .O— Does not It^^TT mean disgust in Marathi?

A— I cannot say. I have not referred to thedictionary in making yourtranslatio n?

46

O — But did not you refer to the dictionary?

A — I cannot remember.

O — Refer to the word l?T?^?:r at page 379 ofCandy's Dictionary, is themeaning given there as hatred ?

A— No.

Q — While "disgust" is; "a feeling that producesdisgust."

A — The words scorn or scorning also appear.

O — It produces equally dislike or disgust?

A — You are reading the adjective not the verb.

O — What is your edition when was it published, in1857 ?

File1-Tilak TrialA— Yes.

Q — We are both looking at the same edition. You donot read it asieeling of disgust?A— No.

Q — I^ook 3 or 4 lines further down "the obstinacyand perversity of thewhite official class." What is the original word forobstinacy in Marathi?

A— 15.

Q. And for pervesity?

A. im^.

O. Then f^ and ^in^ are the original words. Are notthese wordssynonymous and used to make the sentence moreemphatic ?

A. I cannot say.

O. There are two words which are nearly synonymousand are jisedfor the purpose of emphasis, do you admit that ?

A. No, there is the conjunction "and" between thetwo words; other-wise it should have been " or " .

Q, You say, f^ cannot be rendered as stubbornness orobstinacy ?Cannot it be translated as stubborness ?

A. No the word cannot be used in the sense of

File1-Tilak Trialstubbornness orobstinacy.

His L^ordship: — Can it be rendered stubbornness ?

O a What would be necessary to make it stubbornness?

A, I cannot say.

O. Suppose I add the words |5 \m\ im^ then would itmean stubborn-mess?

47

A. No.

O . Could the meaning of the line f?r?.f&percnt;^T f^roff^ read stubbornnesso perversity ?

A. I do not think so.

Q. Please look at the article of 19th May headed " ADouble Hint"see the translation on page 3, 25th line " whenseveral attempts."

Q. Turn to the article of 12th May, see the words "But the dispensationsof God are extraordinary". What do you makeextraordinary in Marathi ? A.^JT^T RTTpnr. Q- What do you make &percnt;*TK*T ? A.Appointment or determinationor destination. Q. How is it derived 1 A. It is

File1-Tilak Trialderived f rom f^qq". Q. It is areduplication of ^JT-rtTJT *? A. pThat is not themeaning here. Q. You don't thinkit can be better rendered by rules ? A. Kules wiilnot do. Q. Can it be render-ed by the ways of God are strange 1 A. Yes, it woulddo equally good. Q.Better 1 A, I do not say better bat equally. Q. Whatis the meaning of ^^z ?A. Overbearing. Q. Rude ? A. Yes. Q. It is used asinsulting, can we sayimpatiently ? A. Yes it might, I cannot say. Q. Notimpudentlj='343'T5t ? A.I cannot say offhand ; it may do. Q. You said justnow impatiently would do?A. I said I could not say offhand. I do not know theshades of meaning. Q.Look at the sentence " patience of humanity" would''human patience" do ? A. itmight. Q. What is i^^u^^l^ ? A. It may be used ashumanity. Q, Would you saythe humanity of the English ? A. It is either anabstract or collective noun. Q. Itmay be equally well represented that way? A. Eat notliterally. Q. What is ^^q9 A.Excited, agitated or exasperated. Q. How did youtranslate it? A. As exasperated.Q,Turn to the sentence "inebriated with the insolenceof authority" what is ^^ ? A.Insolence. Q. And 5^ ? A. Inebriated. Q. Does ^^mean blind or inebriated? A. I donot know without looking at the dictionary. Q, Whatis ^^ ? A. Blind or dimmedor dulled vision; intoxication is the secondmeaning. Q. What is q-^? A.. Arro-gance, haughtiness, Q. What is the primary meaning?A. I do not know. I knowthat it means arrogance and haughtiness literally,

File1-Tilak TrialQ. How do you render 3Tr:r^n:-«T^W ^ ? A. Blinded by the intoxication of power. Q.How do you render Mono-poly ? A, q^j^R qrfir ^[r^m- Q. Would ^1 W^\ do ? A.Yes it would be a freerendering, but it would not express the meaningproperly or accurately. Q. Howdo you render ^ ifrf^ ? A. Whole control. Q. How doyou render 37# ITF^^K^CmTI'^TR ^nfir ? A. This cannot fail to happen. Q. Itcannot but be so will be a propertranslation ? A. It would be a free rendering. Q.How do you render 3?^ 3TH-^?Tmwhat does it mean ? A. Ruler and .ruled ? Q. Belowagain the capital Kis used, is that also due to the printer's devil ?A. Yes, it should be a commonnoun. Q. ?:T^r ^ IHTT were the original words ; whatdo they mean ? Q. King andsubject. His Lordship: — It is a common nonn ? A.Yes my Lord. Araised: Yesmy Lord it is a common expression in Marathi x\'^\ &^"^l- It means ruler andruled. Q, Would T\^\ mean many rulers ? A. No. 0.Turn to page 4, eighthline from the bottom '¦^regardless of its own lifeafter all means if pnitection havehecomc e.rliavsted. " The original word there is^'^RI^ ^\^, that means means ofescape ? A. No, means of protection, Q. W^m^ wouldbe protection ?A. No, it may mean protection, escape or resortaccording to the sense.Q. That is merely the simile of a stag at bay ? A.Yes. Q. How do you trans-late Political Science into Marathi and Science ofPolitics. A. Witness : I cannot

File1-Tilak Trialat once. Q. 5ci3RTm&percnt; 5ri^ and?:i^v;iin&percnt;j ^j^ would that do '.^ A. Yes, itmight.Q. How do you render Science laying down the dutiesof kings. A. ?:IjT''?^i^.Q, Could we say 3T^ ?TiT-qJT5n^ 4i3ic|H ^riHT ^\\ ?A. Yes ? Q. You have saidtnis means settled conclusions of the science otpolitics ? A. It would be a para-phrase of the rendering. Q. Now let os turn toExhibit E in the original. Lookat the translation of the 3rd note, page a column 3.^;^^qi=lf Statesman tf^

49

f' H^M-^f-fe-^ ! rNl^ ^r*^ liOW do you render that ?A. Controlled by missionaries. Q.Not following the missionary policy ? A. No. Q. Does^5r never mean policy 1 A.It means "subservience. " Q. Never policy 1 A. 1cannot say. I shall see thedictionary. Q. Have you consulted the dictionary ?A, Yes, it means subser-vience ; line of conduct, according to Molesworth.Q. What is qttt^ ?f^^T^* 3Tif ^ t^^ ? A. It means line of conduct, Q. Inthe 4th note thewords Tj^n appear, how do you render them ? A.National Assassination.It occurs in two places, which do you refer to ? Q,In both. A. Rastra is nationand ^^ means to kill, Q. What does ^^=1 mean ? —Assassination, Q, It meanskilling a nation ? A. No. Q. Not killing nationality? A, No, assassination

File1-Tilak Trialof a nation. Q. Then it may mean killing a nation ?A. Yes, it may. Q. Then whydid you say the word means "assassination" insteadof killing. A. I have alreadytold you it is not my translation. Q. Turn to thearticle of 2nd June; how do youtranslate py gfsf^'Jf ? A. Raise a false report. Q.And according to Molesworth f^means alarm or outcry,^ A. Yes. Q. Turn to page 2,line 49, you see the word ''world"there, how do you translate that ? A, It is amistranslation or the translator hasmisread the original tsRHT or ^IT^. Q. Then it is amistake and the meaning is chan-ged ? A, Yes. Q. The translator has misread theoriginal? A. Yes, Q, Look at Exhibit"D" the Kcsari of 9th June, the second incriminatingarticle. Take g^c5HHi ^7^^l^r ^?f, How will you translate it ? A, Savage. Q.Would you use the word fiercefor ^lofT instend of savage ? A. Yes, savage,fierce, harsh would do. Q.Would it do to substitute stern or^relentless ? A,Yes. Q. How do you translateqi^ ? A, Manliness. Q. Is there no distinctionbetween manhood and manliness ?A. Yes, there may be a difference. Q. Take thedictionary and tell me. A. InMolesworth's dictionary there is ''manhood". Q. InApte's Dictionary there is*'manhood ?" A. No, Apte gives manliness, valour,courage, strength, power.Q. Do you still maintain that it means manhood ? A,Yes, I maintain that ^f^means that; here manhood is the proper wordaccording to Molesworth. Q. How¦would you translate " When once the Indian peoplebecome emasculated

File1-Tilak Trialit will be long before you can get them to recovertheir manliness and vigour f

A. tÊf.^ fl^^^Rîqi îî=t *{^fgJTRT'iri^- Q. Wouldit be bettertranslated 'in an irresponsible way' A. No. Q. Whatis giTR ? A. Heed orregard. Q. What is another equivalent ? A. mx^, 't^.Q. It may mean regard ?A. Yes, regard or heed. Q. It jmeans regard in thiscontext ? A. I cannot say.Q. How do you render "migratory bureaucracy" thewords used by Burke ?

50

A. ;jtjVY arfwrt ^, not having a permanentresidence. Q. ;3qO ^TpÎ^Tfrwould do ? A. It would be crude. Q. Will you acceptmigratory bureaucracy ?A. It might do, though it would not be the literalmeaning. Q. Now look at thewords "nose string" in ninth line of page .'3, theoriginal word is tôr whichmeans bridling in English ? A. Yes, thecorresponding English idea is bridling.Q. What is ^nf^ in English? A. Gratuitous, I amgiving it offhand. Q.qTf^» what does that mean ? A. Literally it meanscauseless. Q. How doyou translate ^\^^ ^ffj^ ? A. Openly, avowedly, Q.Not admittedly ? A, Yesbut that >vould be stretching it further still. Q.Admittedly or avowedly woulddo in that case ? A. It goes without saying that itwill mean those words.

File1-Tilak Trial^. Now take up the article of the 26th May. What isthe real meaning of \^^^&percnt; ?A. One who is adverse to the weal of others. Q. DoYou take q^f rR^^f ? A.'J did notknow the word, I referred to the dictionary for it.Q. You have translated it aswelfare? A, Yes. Q. Is it not ff^^ 5135^ ? wouldthat be false? A. Indirectly.•Q. Do you mean to say that the words do not conveythe meaning of a falsefriend ? A. I am not prepared to give an opinion. Q.Can it be rendered as anenemy in the garb of a friend ? A. I have not seenit rendered in that light before.I hesitate to say so in the face of Molesworth. Q.Is the word \&percnt;r\ used for friend ?A. No, it is used for welfare. Q, Does ^^^[S meanevil glance ? A. Literallyit means cross glance. Q. Does it not mean disfavour? A. That may be its re-mote meaning. Q. How would you translate ^gixfr^TTT^^f^?: ^^?:r&percnt; ^\€l 3Trf ? A.He is looking with an evil glance at me. Literallyhe is looking at me withan evil eye or with disfavour. Q. Look at page 2 andthe third line, you see there'look with disfavour upon the people ? ' A. Yes. Q.Look at page 2 line 3 *' malig-nant eye. " A. It can be made 'disfavour' but thatwould be a remote meaning,Q. How do you translate Jlboqi^l R^r ^V^ ? A. Tothrow one's arms roundanother's neck; to embrace. Q. On the same page 2,3rd line, the rendering isto catch him by the neck. A. The more literaltranslation is to throw one's armsround the neck. His Lordship. — Then that is not thecorrect translation ? A.

File1-Tilak TrialIt is rather uncouth but correct. Q. Then thedifference between embracing andcatching by the neck is only uncouthness ? A, Catchis used in its literal sense.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

On the Court re-assembling Mr. Tilak was about torecommence the cross-examination of Mr. Joshi when his Lordship remarked,that he had noticed cer-tain remarks in the Bombay Gasette^ vfiiich w^e notonly untrue but objectionableand he warned the press.

The passage to which his Lordship took exception wasthe following : —

The accused complained tnat the official translationdid not give the correct

equivalents in English. And that was the burden ofhis complaint. He was

allowed to cross-examine the writness at furtherlength, as though the witnesswas competing at a prize competition.

Application was then made for the use of books ofreference ^in the HighCourt Library for the purposes of Mr. Tiiak'sdefence.

His Lordship said he would allow the legal advisersof Mr. Tilak to see himat all times but the Bar Library was not under hiscontrol.

File1-Tilak TrialThe cross-examination of Mr. Joshi was thencontinued by Mr. Tilak.

Q. What is the meaning of fi^g^r ? A. The dictionarymeaning is 'Mie-sided.' Q. In what sense is it used in this article? A. I have translated it auto-

51

cratic. Q. It is a coined word / A. Yes. Q. Do youknow that the wordfTsr^'lT is used in the article 1 It meansconstitutionally 1 That is a coined wordis it not / A. Yes. Q. ar^oj^ translate that. A. Itmeans literally resistence'.Q. It is a new word used by journalists and meanspassive resistance/ A. It meansobstruction. His Lordship : Is it now used byjournalists in the sense ofresistance/ A. Yes. Q. Similarly 3[f|':?:R is theword used in sense of boy-cott / A, Yes. Q. It is a new meaning given to the,word.^ A. Yes, it has adifferent meaning in the common sense. Q. Thesemeanings cannot be found inMolesworth, Candy's or Apte's Dictionaries ? A, No,I do not think so. Q Allthese words have new meanings which have come intouse during recent times''A. Yes. Q. The dictionaries would be no good inassertaining the meanings ofthese words/ A. No. Q. Much in the same way asJohnson's Dictionary is use-less for modern scientific terms. A. I am not anexpert in English. Q. Let us

File1-Tilak Trialtake an old English dictionary published thirtyyears ago for determining themodern political terms. A. They would be of no use.Q. I asked you yester-day to bring me your translation of the word " errorof judgment'' the Marathiof which you took time to compose; have you got itwith you ? A. Yes it mavbe translated f^^^T^îT. Q. Is that from currentMarathi literature ? A. No itis a coined word. Q. You have just coined it / A.No. Yasterday. Q. You havecoined it because there has been no reason toexpress the idea before in MarathiA. I coined it yesterday as there is no expressionfor it in Marathi so for asI know. 0. Is the word ff^ used in the sense of ^în Sanskrit / A. Yesit is used in Sanskrit. Q. j^q- is distinct fromfrt? You have a passage in theBagwat Gita— ^;i^^5 TÎfr^:; now can the word ^rc besubstituted for ^q-^ / A.Yes. Q. In R^^î? the word fR[ may be used forfôf^. A. Yes. Q. How would'you translate R^^rw^r^TT ^^r&percnt; Rff^TIW:^T^S'^: ? A. One who has fallen from hisjudgment, one whose judgment has been destroj'-ed.Q. It may mean one whohad erred in his judgment? A. No. Q. f^^^^g: wouldbe milder:^ A. Yes. Q. ^^srprimarily means to fall, and ^g fallea,-notdestroyed. A. Yes. His Lordshiij '^tDoes the word f ^[^rs mean suffering from aberrationof the intellect / A. Yes.Q. fra?9ns is the same as f^sr^^g '? Oue whoseintellect has sufferred aberration ,one who has Eallen from his &percnt;{^? A. Yes. Q.In your official capacity I suppose

File1-Tilak Trialyou have to read the Mara-thi newspapers / A. Yes.Q. And it may be taken thatyou are well acquainted with the general thought ofthose papers? A, Yes.Witness t» Court. Am I being taken into confidentialmatters / His Lordship.No. I don't think so. Q. You are acquainted with thpgeneral trend ? A. Yes,in my official capacity Q. Can you tell us if thereare any parties amongstthe Marathi newspapers / A. I do not think I cananswer that quesLion. HiuLordship: — You are asked whether there are parties/ A. I wish your Lordshipto decide whether I should give an answer in myprivate or official capacity.His Lordship:— 1)0 you read the papers in twodifferent ways, one as an officialand the other as a private individual / Well,reading the Marathi papers as yc^read them are these newspapers divided as classesagianst one another/ A, YesThere are parties and I will give that answer in myprivate capacity.^isZorcfs/w)?: Have you a different opinion in yourofficial capacity 1 A. Thereare parties. Q. How many/ A.. I canaot say exactlyhow many. Q. About ^A.

OF THl; \

UNIVERSiT/ J

52

Three or four parties. Q. Can you give us the

File1-Tilak Trialleading exponent of each of the3 or 4 parties ? A. Of the Anglo-Marathi and Marathiparty the Kesart is theleading exponent of one party. His Lm^dsMp: Did yonsay leading exponent ? A»Yes, my Lord, Q. And the next &percnt; A. The JnduPralcash is the leader of anotherparty, the Slmdharak is of another party and theSubodha Patrika of the otherparty. Q. Yon have given four parties, have you leftno political party out ofyour enumeration 1 A. No. This closed the crossexamination of Mr, Joshi. TheAdvocate General then re-examined Mr. Joshi.

Re-examination.

Q. With re-ference to the articles and words whichhave been referredto in this case and the lengthy cross-examination,can you from your own know-ledge of those articles, can you tell me what wouldbe the effect of those articles-on the minds of the ordinary subscribers to theKesari ? Accttsd :— My Lord,does this arise out of cross-examination? It is amatter of opinion to be formedby the jury. His Lordship: It is a legitimatequestion arising out of your crossexamination. Advocate General. I wanted to know theopinion of the ordinaryreader. Q. You have been ten years Orientaltranslater to Government 1 A. Yes.A. Having gone through the offiicial translation

File1-Tilak Trialmade by High Court areyou satisfied that these translations are correct ?A. Yes. I am.Q, Except one word utt which should have been 3TITand not ^?ijt -^ A, Yes.Q. What is the vernacular word for stubbornness ? A.^qijf. Q, That mightbe interpreted into the English word stubbornness inthe article of 12th May1908 ? Is something vranted in the translation ofthe English expression ? A.Yes. Q, Can you supply the missing part ? A.Obstinate retention of a wrongopinion. Q. Now you were asked ab out the word '*embark. " Will you give methe vernacular for that word 1 A. sr^frT, Q. Is thatcorrectly translated in 'embark?A. Yes. Q. See the bottom of page and top of pagethree; do you see the word* Indignation V Is that correctly transl ated 1 Q.Yes. Q. Then you were askedalso about the word " assassination", which appearsin more than one place of thearticls of 12th May? Q. Yes. Q. What is theVernacular expression for the word ? A.cfVT. Q. Does that correctly translate the Englishword assassination? A. yes. Q. Ithink it was suggested to you that the word 'kill'is probably more correct repre-senting 'to slaughter' than 'to assassinate'? A. Ido not agree with that. Bis Lord-ship : You say 'kill' is not the right expression?A. No. Advocate-General:- Will youtell his Lordship and the Jury whether assassintionis the proper meaning andwhet her you prefer it to killing ? Bis Lordship :Why do you think assassinationis more proper than killing? A. ^ra^T^^R "^515^1^1

File1-Tilak Trial^^i-That menas the assassinationof Narayenrao Peshwa; jti^'cJ means slaughter ofcows* srvi-means assassination. MisLordship: Then the woid gvi is translated killing,slaughter or assassination acc-ording to the context ? A. Yes. Q. Kow you wereasked about parties in the nativepress. You said the Kesari was one ; is it theleading pape^. ? A. Yes. Q. Towhat party does the paper belong ? A. The partyknown as the Extremists arethe Nationalist party. Q. Do you know who is editorof the paper? A. YesQ, Who is it? A. Theaccusedr Q. Do you know who isthe proprietor ? Ar

58

Yes, the accused. His Lordship :— I don't think thatarises oat of the cross-examination. Advocate General : — ^The object was toprove that there are partiesin the native press and we have to show that theKesari represents the extremistsand that the accused is Editor and proprietor. HisLordehip ;— The accused didnot ask about the Editors of the other papers.

Advocate General: — "Well, if your Lordship thinksit is not permissible I will notpress it. There are other materials which will provethe Proprietor andpublisher of the Kesari ; and that lie is editoralso.

His Lordship: — I have no admission of his

File1-Tilak Trialeditorship before me.

Advocate General: — He described himself bafore theMagistrate as an editor. Hedid not say he is editor of the Kesari. I propose toput in his declarationsmade under Act. 25 of 18G7 and a copy of thisdeclaration is permissible asevidence. It was for the purpose of convinience andsaving time I asked thewitness whether accused was Editor and proprietor ofthe Kesari,

His Lordship:— Of course the court has a right toask any question but I do notwish to do so.

Advocate General: — I quite understand the delicacyof your Lordship's positionand the way you have directed the witness, I onlythought perhaps itwould be much better for the accused to admit this.

His Lordship:— If the accused wishes to make thatstatemant of course I'lhear him,

Advocate General:— If I have gone further than Iought in pressing this it wasonly to save time. I will put in the twodeclarations in due course.

Accused:— We are not going to dispute that point. Iam Editor, Publisher andProprietor of the Kesari^ and I accept fullrespensibility of the articles'in question.

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship: — You admit this?

A. Yes. My Lord.

His Lordship.— -And you accept responsibility forall the Exhibits from C to I ?

A. Yes, My Lord.

Advocate Genorel: — As a mere matter of form I willput in the declarations of theaccused dated 1st July 1867 both dated the same day.They are declarationsbefor the first calss Magistrate of Poona and thecertified copies here areevidence under section 7 and the following sectionsof Act. 25 of 1867, i bM*'

That will save considerable time and that will setfree Mr. Tilak's compositors.

I do not wish to detain them here as their servicesare required at Poona,

Mr. Joshi: —Am I done with Your Lordship ?

His Lordship :— Yes, you may go.

Advocate General :— We have two short witnesses \ioprove publication inBombay and as I do not apprehend that they will becross-examined we may bdable to put up the witness who searched the house.

54

File1-Tilak TrialNARAYAN JUGANNATH DATAR.Examined by Mr. Binning: —

Q. You are a clerk in the Customs Reporter General'sDepartment >

A. Yes.

Q. Where do you live ?

A. Kandewadi.

Q. In addition to your occupation do you do anyother busine&s ?

A. Yeg".

Q. What is it ?

A. The agency of the Kesari and the Mciratha.

Q. During the period 12th May and 9th June 1908 ?

A. ,Yes.

Q. Where is your agency. ?

A. In Bombay.

Q. When did you begin to be agent to the Kesari?

A. Off and on I have been connected with the agencyof the Kesari for thepast 25 years.

His Lardship: since when did you last become agent ?

A. Since 1886.

File1-Tilak Trial

Q. Were you agent in 1908.

A. yes, up till July 4th.

His Lordship:— When did you begin the last time tobe agent ?

A. About 1900.

His Lordship : — And you gave it up on the 4th ofJuly 1908^A. Yes.

Q. As agent of the Kesari, what had you to do ?

A. I kept accounts and made clerks do the work,

Q, Kept accounts of what ?

A. How many copies were sold.

. Q. How many copies did you receive each week ?

A. About 3000; the number has been changing thisyear.

Q. Now generally you got about 3000 copies in May ?

A. Yes, sometimes a hundred or two less.

His Lordship :— About 2800 in May ?

Q. How many subscribers are there in Bombay r"

A. 1250.

File1-Tilak Trial

55

Q. Do you read the paper yourself ?

A. Yes.

Q. See Exhibits C and D, did you read these articles?

A. Yes.

Q. And were copies of these sent to you at Bombay ?

A. Yes.

Q, Do you see Exhibits C to B. 19, 2t) May and 2Jane ? did you recei\rthose issues in Bombay ?

A. Yes.

Q. You supplied them to subscribers "?

A. Yes,

Q. Every week?

A. Yes.

Q. What is the cost of subscription ?

A. Rs. 1-12 per year in Bombay.

Q. And to non-subscribers.

A. 3 pice ( 9 pies ).

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship : — Mr. Tilak, do you wish tocross-examine ?

Accused : — No, my Lord.

His Lordship to Witness : — You say, you kept copiesand your accounts, didyou return unsold copies ?

A. They were sold here.

( i. What was the honorarium paid to you ?

A. It was fixed.

Q, How much ?

A. Rupees 30 per month.

Q. Did you supply a copy to the Translator's office?

A. I do not remember.

Rupat Rama was called but was not present.

Balvant Krishnaji was called but was also notpresent.

Advocate General ;, — I wont waste time in askingfor warrants.

His Lordship :— What were they to prove.

Advocate General :— That they were sold in thestreet.

His Lordship :— Please recall the last witness.

File1-Tilak Trial

His Lordship to Witness : — Besides sending 1250copies to subscribers 1600 or1700 copies were left, how did you sell those ?

56

A. I sold them to the news boys.

Q, what do they pay ?

A. 4 anna per copy.

Q. The news boys make 1 pice ( three pies ) on eachcopy?

A. Yes.

Peter Sullivan ( Bombay Police ) examined by Mr.Binning.

Q. Your name is Peter Sullivan ?

A. Yes.

Q, You are an Inspector of the Bombay Police ?

A. Yes.

QJ Now in this case did you get a warrant forExecution in Poona ?

A. Yes.

Q. Was it for the search of the house of Mr. Tilak

File1-Tilak TrialA. Yes.

Q. For the press and office ?

A. Yes.

Q. You got it from the Chief Presidency Magistrate,Bombay ?

A. Yes.

Q. Who was it executed by

A. By Mr. Davis, District Superintendent of Police,Poona.

Q- Were you present when the warrant was executed ?

A. I was.

Q. And when the premises of Mr. Tilak were searchedwere you there ?

A. Yes,

•Q. That is to say press and office and housesearches. Were you present

at all ?

A. Yes, I was.

^. Who actually conducted the search of the officeand press ?

A. The search was conducted in the presence of theDistrict Superintendentof Police assisted by myself and Deputy

File1-Tilak TrialSuperintendent Power andother police officers.

His Lordship:— Give me the names.

Q, Mr. Daniels — Assistant Superintendent, Mr. Power— Deputy Superinten

dent and Mr. King^ — City Inspector, myself and somenative officers.A. Mr. Davis D. S, P. was also there ?-Q. Yes, my Lord.

57

Mr. Binning.— And was Mr. Kelkar there ?A. He was present,

Q. Did you yourself find anything in the course ofthe search ?A. I did.

Q. What did you find ?

A. Amongst other things. I found a post card withsome writing upon it.Q. Is this the card you found ?A. Yes.

Q. Where was it found ?

A. In the top right hand drawer of the writing tablein a room in Mr .Tilak's residence apparently used as an ofi6.ce.

His Lordship: — I understand that you tell me that

File1-Tilak Trialthe press, residence andoffice are in Ihe hsmo house ?

A. No, my Lord, they are joined. The residence is onone side.

His Lordship: — Are the places separate or joined ?A. The press is separate, the other places arejoined.

JQ. And this was found in a room in Mr. Tilak'sresidence apparently usedas an office ?

A. Yes.

Mr. Binning;— Now when you found that card what didyou do with it ?

A. I showed it to Mr, Davis and Mr, Power and alsoto Mr. Kelkar.

¦Q, Did you hand it over to any body or did you keepit yourself^

A. I did.

Q, Did you produce it before the Magistrate inBombay ?

A. I did.

Q. Having kept the card till now you produce it 1

His Lordship, — ^Were you entrusted with it all thetime till you produce it ?

A. I was, my Lord.

File1-Tilak TrialMr. Binning: — ^Did Mr. Kelkar initial it ?Accused;— Mr. Kelkar is here and what he said is notevidence.His Lordship: — I was watching for that, Mr. Tilak.Accused: — Mr, Kelkar initialled it, what has thatgot to do with it? Is it relevant ?

Advocate General:— Of course if:— Accused says itwas found in his drawer thereis no need to go any further. This is all veryinformal, my Lord, I nowtender it as evidence against the accused as showingthas it was in his

possession. Whether it carries the case further ornot is another matter.That depends upon the evidence. But the fact is thatit was found in hisresidence, in a drawer in a table in the roomoccupied by him.

I would draw your Lordship's attention to the casedecided by Lord Campbell andChief Justice Pollock, in Crown F Bernard, reportedin Forster and Find-layson at Page 240. I point to this case as having avery direct bearingon this.

His Lordship:— His Lordship directs against.

Advocate General: — Yes, my Lord.

Advocate General: — The other case, my Lord, I willrefer to very shortly but thi&case is so absolutely on the point that I shall draw

File1-Tilak Trialyour Lordship's attehtionto it first. The facts are stated in page i\S6 ofRussell on Crimea, the latestedition:— ( Reads " when a trial for murder &c. "to" admissable." ) YourLordship will see directly, that there is thewriting of the person on thiscard. Of course in the case under reference theletter was written by athird person and here is Russell's comment on it:— (Reads from '' all theperson") I think I must state what the contents arein order that you mayconsider the question of law in regard to theadmission.

His Lordship; — I wouldTather you did not statethem. '

Advocate General ;— If your Lordship thinks I oughtnot to, I will n. Besides being actual,'the mischief must be done or attempted malsaiiimo.''^

The guilt of Sedition is not contracted by the merepublication of lan-guage calculated to excite disaffection or disorder, for this may be done bya lunatic, or a Clerk of Court reading anindictment, or the speaking ofmachine. There must be a criminal mind. This stateof mind is usuallydescribed by saying that the mischief for which thepublication was calcu-lated, must have been intended, because such anintention is usually thefact. But it is not meant by this, and it iscertainly not necessary, that

File1-Tilak Trialthe accomplishment of that particular mischiefshould form the exactmotive. A criminal indulgence in even a good motivewiU do ; as if aperson should inflame the rabble from love of power,or of applause. Andthere may be a culpable indifferoice ofconsequences^ in which absence ofmotive there may be as much wickedness as in theoperation ofmotive. All these, and many other, mental conditionsare states of mainsaninms. The great error to be avoided is the errorof supposing that Sedi-tion can ever consist in the mere nse of thelanguage^ abstracted from everyother consideration . Such a principle would beinconsistent with the rightof public discussion. Not that the mains animns.,that is the wicked-ness, must always be established as a substantivefact by separate evidence.It may be inferred from the whole circumstances, andespecially from thewords, or the act or acts, charged. It is a fairpresumption that peoplemean what they say, and intend what they do. But itis competent to theAccused to exclude the application of thispresumption. And consequentlysince it is a matter of evidence, it is for the Juryto decide it.

This shows that the mere publication of an article,whatever thecontext, whatever the surrounding circumstances, isnot an offence. TheJury has to make up its mind not by reading the

File1-Tilak TrialArticle alone. I do not meanthat it is not evidence. It is some evidence, but ifJ were to attributeto it a pecuniary value I would say the financialvalue of the article ismerely one Anna in the Rupee; you have to find 15Annas worth of evidenceelsewhere and when this is done you must look to theother circum-stances. Of course if the defence does not urgeother circumstances perhapsit may be justifiable to return a verdict cf gniltyby reading the articlealone. But, when there are other circumstances whichare shown to.

77

exist, then it is the bouudeu duty of the Jury totake all the circumstancesinto consideration and then to decide whethercertain intention was in themind of the accused or not. That is what I wanted todraw your attentionto in the beginning. The Section does not saywhoever publishes anythinglikely to create disaffection; that is not thewording of the Section. TheSection says whoever "attempts" to excite, and ifthat is proved you cantruly say a man is guilty. If you find an ounce ofopium with a man wouldyou say that he had intended to commit suicide ? Thepossession of theopium would not be an indication of intention ; hemay have been an habi-

File1-Tilak Trialtual opium-eater. If you saw a man leaping into atank would you sayit is necessarily an attempt to commit suicide ? Hemay be a good swim-mer and may want to enjoy a plunge. Of course itwould be argued thatit is for the defence to bring evidence to prove thecontrary; that theburden of it lies upon the Accused. That again iswrong law and wrongdoctrine. It is not sanctioned by the Evidence Act.It is the duty of theprosecution to prove every thing includingintention. According to theEvidence Act you have to presume first that theaccused is not guilty ; it isfor the prosecution to show by reliable evidencethat every element of thecrime that enters into the definition is made out. Iask you what havethey proved in this case ? They have merely shownyou some articles,and would appear to say "Don't you think they aresedetious ? Return averdict of guilty. Here is the article; we have gotit translated from theoriginal. We place it before you; you can see thatsome of the wordsare very strong and likely to excite disaffection,therefore as a matterof legal inference the Accused is guilty; so returna verdict ofguilty and go away." That is the whole case;absolutely nothing else.To them it makes no difference what thecricumstances were, whenthe article >sms written. The burden of proving allthat is thrown

File1-Tilak Trialupon the defence. They do not take intoconsideration the fact thatthis article \!/as written in the heat ofcontroversy, that this articlewas intended as a piece of advice, and that it iswritten in reply to certaincriticisms already published. These are theprincipal circumstances underwhich the article was written . But the prosecutionsays " it is no businessof ours to inquire into these circumstances. We onlyplace the articlebefore you and if the Accused does not reply, thebest course for you,and the only legal course for you possibly, is toreturn a verdictof guilty. " Now Section 124 A has threeExplanations and not exceptions.The Explanations are as follows: —

Explanation 1. — The expression " Disaffection "includes disloyaltyand all feelings of enmity.

Explanation 2. — Comments expressing disapprobationof the measuresof the Government with a view to obtain theiralteration by lawful means*,"without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,contempt or disaffection,•do not constitute an offence under this section.

Explanation 3. — Comments expressing disapprobationof the adminis-trative or other action of the Government withoutexciting or attemptiuo-to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection do notconstitute an o^ence

File1-Tilak Trialtinder this section.

78

They explain the words in the main part of theSection. They explain' disloyalty ' '(Reads) . I think that ought to havebeen proved by the prose-cution in the first instance that the Explanationsto the section are satisfiedas well as the Section itself. The burden of proofis not on the defence. Theprosecution have not discharged this duty and havewrongly thrown the burdenupon the defence. They ought to have shown bysubstantial proof thatthe writer has exceeded the limits of fairexpression of opinion, faircomment, and fair disapprobation. I know that youwill be told " we do notobject to the liberty of the press, but we don'twant that liberty to descendto license. " But you have to define what that maymean to yourself.Where does liberty cease and where does licensebegin ? That has to bedefined by the common sense of the Jury. That isyour duty. The law isvery strict but iti'is the Juries in England thathave stood between the¦ strictness of the law and the liberty of thepress,' and you have to performthe same duty in this case. I mean to place beforeyou all the circumstancesunder which the article was written and it isimportant to show what my

File1-Tilak Trialintention was in writing that article. Whether Imeant to excite disaffec-tion or attempted to do so or whether that was notmy intention. Intentionis not a physical fact ; no one can see the heart ofanother man. If Ihave to judge of your intention, I must judge itfrom your overt acts. Icannot dive into your heart and know what is passingthere. Intentionhas always to be gathered by inference; but thequestion here is whetherinference is to be judged from one fact or fromseveral surround-ing circumstances. The fact of publication alone isnot sufficient; youmust take into consideration all the surroimdingcircumstances. I maintain,and several learned j)ersons in England havemaintained, that you musttake into consideration the surroundingcircumstances and give them theirproper evidentiary value in lav/ and you must arriveat your verdict bytaking into consideration every fact that is beforeyou. It would be unwiseto say that the character of the writing may beprima facie inferred fromthe words themselves ; and if you were to go onsending to prison every manwho only writes particular words you would have tosend to jail every writer ofa dictionary. Webster's Dictionary e.g. contains allpossible seditious words.

Then I must refer you to another case. It is fromErskine's speechesVol.1, page 1867 and is known as the Dean of St.

File1-Tilak TrialAsaph's case. In the speechfor the defence the following words occur. Supposethe Crown were to electssome passage from Locke upon Government as forinstance "that the ^re wano difference between the King and the Constablewhen either of themexceeded their authority. " That assertion undercertain circumstances iftaken by itself, without the context, might behighly seditious and thequestion therefore would be gtco animus it waswritten. Perhaps the realmeaning might not be discoverable by the immediatecontext without a \iewof the whole chapter-perhaps of the whole book.

Then I will read to you another passage from ErskineVol. I. page386. This refers to the Bible and says that if onlythe words " There is noGod" were read and their context omitted, even theBible would be ablamphemous work. You will have to look to thecircumstances. In orderto do this effectually, the Jury is selected fromthe people, the Jury is thuslikely to know their circumstances. You, of course,have not that advan-

79

tage here; there can be no comparison between anEnglish Jury and theJury in India, in this respect. It is a matter to bedecided by twelve men

File1-Tilak Trialdrawn from among the people. Intention is to bedecided by twelve menand, mark you, they must be unanimous. That is notthe case here. InEngland if one man out of the twelve disagrees, theJury is discharged, andanother Jury is empannelled ; and if this happenstwo or three times the manis ultimately acquitted. Of course in charging theJury it is the custom tosay you should look to the article and to thesurrounding circumstances,but I believe it is the duty of the Prosecution topoint out whether thereare any exculpating circumstances and I have nodoubt His Lordshipwill direct acccrdingly. Now there are other pointsof the Section to whichI wish to draw your attention. What does " Excite "mean ? It is f rom ,.exciter; it is to inflame, to create what does notexist, to raise to a higher |degree what exists already. If there is no hatred orcontempt alreadyexisting, to ' excite ' is to create it. If it doesexist it is to highten it, toincrease it. Now I will make myself clear by anillustration. Supposethere is unrest, and Government sends an officer toinquire into the reasonsthereof and that officer makes a report to theGovernment that the unrest isdue to certain causes and it could be easilyremedied by Government; wouldyou charge that officer with disaffection ? The manonly describes the feel-ings of the people and represents them. He makes areport upon them.

File1-Tilak TrialHe does not go beyond that and is certainly notdoing a seditious act. Toexcite feelings of disaffection means that by youract you must heightenfeelings of disaffection when they exist or createthem when they do not.If you do not do anything to excite feelings, if youmerely express, if youmerely report, if you only express sentiments whichexist at the time, surelyyour act does not come under Section 124 A. Nay,more, you may createa feeUng of disapprobation. I can say with impunitysomething is bad;it ought to be remedied. I have to write; I have aright to do that and ifI find fault it is only natural that some ill-feeUngis created. We arenot all saints. So in disapprobation some iU-feelingis necessarily implied.That is the meaning of Explanation 2 to the Section;it refers to "Com-ments expressing disapprobation of the measures ofthe Government."When I say that Government is going wrong, evidentlyI say somethingwhich the authorities may not like . That is notsedition ; if that wereso, there could be no progress at aU and we shallhave to be content atthe end of the 20th century with what we have atpresent. True progresscomes of agitation; and you are bound to considerthe defects pointedout and discussed and the reforms proposed and tolook to the realintention of the man. I say the 'real intention' andnot the 'fictitious

File1-Tilak Trialintention' which is inferred from the legal dictumthat every man intendsthe natural consequences of his acts. This then isthe conclusion reached.If the intention is really to reform Government itis not seditious .-"Sedition" has never been properly defined. TheExplanation to theSection is as follows :-

I cannot conceive of disapprobation being expressedwithout excitingsome bad feeling in the minds of the hearer aboutthe person against whomthat comment is made. It is impossible to do it.That is what the Explan-ation there refers to. It is to show either that somuch liberty is allowed

80

to the press or it has no meaning, at all. I requestyon to take it that ithas,a meaning and that the legislature intended itto have that meaning.The Explanation was not meaninglessly introduced. Ifit has a meaning, theonly meaning it can have is that a certain amount ofunpleasant feeling isJ. allowed to be created by law. It is impossible todefine the limit wherej! liberty and disapprobation end and license andsedition begin. It is notto be decided merely as a legal inference; you haveto decide as menof commonsense.

File1-Tilak Trial

Lord Kenyon has said; "if any twelve men of mycountrymen unani-mously say that a particular Article or writingdeser\-es to be condemnedthat is sedition. No definition can give you anycorrect idea about it".It is a doctrine laid down by a ver^- learned andrespected Judge. Hegives lip the attempt to define and says ''bringtwelve men from amongthe people and ask them if I have exceeded thelimits and if they say yes,then con\-ict me." That is why that definition ofsedition has been veryoften quoted. It is the popular definition. I willnow read a passage toyou from Lord Kenyon 's Charge to the Jury fromPaterson on the"Liberty of the Press". That is the simplestdefinition that can be given.It lays down the limit between liberty and Ucenseand between legitimatedisapprobation of Government and Sedition.

According to the phraseolog}- of Law "act" isdifferent from action!Act is something done; action is abstract and mayinclude a policy ofGovernment. Then there is another expression towhich I wish to draw¦your attention; and it is " Government estabHshedby law in British India"' Government ' here does not mean the Executive orthe Judiciar\^ but itmeans Government in the abstract. The word 'Government ' is definedin the Indian Penal Code and includes any officer,

File1-Tilak Trialeven a poHce constable.It does not mean that if I say a police man is notdoing his duty then Iam guilty of sedition. Go up higher. If certainOfficials have not been doingtheir duty I have ever\' right to say that theseofficials should be discharged;there should be stricter supen-ision and thatparticular departments shouldbe altered. So long as the word " Government " isqualified by the words" established by Law, " how can it have the meaninggiven to it by adefinition of the word ( "Government" ) in aparticular part in the PenalCode ? The quaHf^-ing phrase makes it a quitedifferent thing. It is" Government established by law." We shall have tocome aften\'ards tothe question whether Bureaucracy is Government ornot ? Whether theBritish Government is solely dependent upon theBureaucracy? Can it notexist without it? The Bureacracy may say so, itmaybe very flattering to themto say that the services of certain officers areindispensable to them but is itthe meaning conveyed by the expression "Governmentestablished by law inBritish India"? Does it mean a " form ofadministration" and is it consistentwith that meaning? So far as ideals are concernedthey do not come under thePenal Code. I may say that a certain system ofadministration is better suitedto the countr^^ and may tv}- to spread that opinion.You may not agree withme but that is not the point. I have to express my

File1-Tilak Trialopinion and so long as Ido not create any disaffection I am allowed toexpress it freely. There 'canotherwise be no progress; progress would beimpossible unless you allow in-telligent gentlemen the right to express theiropinion, to influence the public

¦and get the majority of the public on their side.See the wording of the Sec-tion. The words are "Government established by Lawin British India. " Ithink Justice Batty in the ' ' Bhala ' ' case ( thesame case from which Ihave already quoted to ^-ou ) says that you have toconsider the tendencyof the writing etc . The passage says that it isquite allowable for a man tosay that the particular form of Government shouldnot exist. That does notimply any hostihty to Government. Now if we werephilosophicallydiscussing the point, and Section 124 A werestrictly applied,* every phil-osopher in the world to whom we owe all thisprogress will have to besent to Jail.

Supposing a man in England were to write thatconstitution!monarchy is not good for England, it has been statedthat it is not sedit-ious to express that view. I will read in thisconnection from Morleyon Compromise, page 224. He says : — "Again take thecase of the

File1-Tilak TrialEnglish monarchy. Grant if you will that thisinstitution has a certainfunction and that by the present chief magistratethis function isestimably performed. Yet if we are of those whobelieve that in thestage of civilisation which England has reached inother matters themonarchy must be either obstructive or injurious orelse merely decorative andthat a merely decorative monarchy tends in diverseways to engender habitsof abasement, to nourish lower social ideals, tolessen a high civil self-respectin the community; then it must surely be our dutynot to lose any oppor-tunity of pressing these convictions. To do this isnot necessarily to act as ifone were anxious for the immediate removal of thethrone and the crowninto the museum of poltical antiquities."

That has been the pronouncement of a statesman andnot merely of a legalauthority . I want to be a millionaire ; will youinfer from it that I want immediate-ly to commit a dacoity ? xMl that I want is to earnmoney. So if I say Bureau-cracy should be changed or modified it is not fairto infer that my intentionis to raise a rebellion and create feelings ofhatred against the Government. f,iWhy should you infer that my intention is really toraise a rebellion and createieelings of hatred? You must be very careful ininferring intention from wordsespecially when you have to infer the feelings ofthe community in which you

File1-Tilak Trialdp not move. If you take the writing, reading italone is not sufficient; youwill have to judge the effect the writing willproduce on Marathi-speakingpeople. It is a very difficult task. There is alwaysthe possibility of misunder-standing. We very often misunderstand each other. IfI draw an inferenceas to your intention without knowing the state ofyour society it is not likelyto be correct. In the same way if you wish to drawan inference from the Marathiwriting as to the effect it would produce on theMarathi-knowing communityyou have to consider the feelings and the generalstate of that community.Without doing that you cannot say whether thewriting will excite anyparticular feehngs or not. Take the instancesuggested to me by mylearned friend Mr. Baptista. \^ou write upon thecow-question. If yonwrite in a particular way the Mahomedan communitymay not be offendedbut the Hindu community may be. The question ofeffect in that casedoes not, depend only upon the writing but also, andmore especially, uponthe state of the mind of the people to whom it isaddressed and the parti-cular time at which it is addressed; upon theparticular state of society and

I

File1-Tilak Trial

82

the stage of its de\elopiiient at the time it isaddressed. What may cause-disaffection to-day luav not ha\'e exciteddisaffection 20 years ago, and whatappears horrible'to-day may appear quite different10 years hence. It is athreefold question. The question of the writing isone factor, the state ofthe society to which that particular writing wasaddressed at tliat particulartime is another factor, and the time at which it isaddressed is the thirdfactor. It is an example of an equation involvingthree unknown quantities .Youcan't find*the value of the equation by knowing thevalue of only one of them.The Prosecution have stated to you the value of onlyone factor, and haveleft you to evolve that of the other two from yourinner consciousness . You are'lidoing of human individuals-of the Natives-of whomyou have little knowle-• do-e. It is quite a different thing when thewriting is in the languagewhich you understand and the commimity to be judgedby you is the oneto which you belong. The question is very peculiarimder Sec. 153 A.You have to decide questions between communities.India is not yet anation in the sense in which it is imderstood inwestern commimities. Youhave to judge whether feelings of animosity may becreated between Hindusand Mahomedans, Parsees and Jews, or Jains and

File1-Tilak TrialBuddhists. How are youto iudge ? Simply by the possible effect of thewriting itself ? That willevidently be a lame, incorrect, unsafe and dangerousway of doing it. TheProsecuticn ought to have produced evidence beforeyou to show what thestate of the IVIarathi speaking people is and howare they likely to be affected .They have produced no evidence to show what may bethe probable effect.I do not blame any body. You, gentlemen, are allshrewd business men. Youcan form your opinion on facts and if theProsecution did not place thesefacts before you who is to be blamed ? Don't thinkthat in anycircumstances you are bound to return a verdict ofguilty. You can say youcan give no verdict as there is no evidence. Ifthere is not evongh evidenceit does not mean that from whatever evidence youhave you must give averdict of guilty. It is open to you to say youcannot make up your minds .Sec. 153 A reads as follows : — " Whoever by words,either spoken or writ-ten, or by signs, or visible representations, orotherwise promotes orattempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatredbetween differentclasses of His Majesty's subjects shall be punishedwith impiisonmentwhich may extend to two years, or with fine, or withboth." Then thereis this expression in the explanation : — " It doesnot amount to an offencewithin the meaning of this section to point out,

File1-Tilak TrialivitJioiit malicioiis inten-tion and with an honest view to their removal,matters which are producingor have a tendency to produce feelings of enmity orhatred between differ-ent classes of His Majesty's subjects. " It is themalicious intention on1 1 which you have to decide. You are not to presumethat intention. Thus'Sedition consists in intention; it does not consistin the act of publication.Sedition does not consist merely in the character ofthe writing. It consistsin an evil mind and that evil mind is to be provedand it must be provedby facts from which you can infer that evilintention . That is the reasonwhy that subject is left to the Jury. Otherwisethere is no reason for theJury to sit in Judgment. Any one could pick up anarticle and say this isseditious. I do not think that that requires muchintellectual power. Whereis the necessity of a Jury and of its beingrmanimous. ? The doctrine is

83

that if 12 men taken from the people come to tliehonest condusion thatmalicious intention does exist then the accused isguilty and not otherwise.Is there any malicious intention ? Is there anycriminal intention ? Isthere any e\il motive in publishing these articles ?Is there any e\'idence

File1-Tilak Trialas to what I had really intended ? If you have nomaterials before )ou,you must return a verdict of not guilty. The merecharacter of the writingmay be prijna facie evidence of the intention butintention must always beinferred from overt acts. Tilak or no Tilak is notthe question. The questionis, do you really intend as guardians of the libertyof the Press to allow asmuch liberty here in India as is enjoyed by thepeople of England. ? Thatis the point that you will have to very carefullyconsider. I wish toshow you that mine is an Article written incontroversy as a reply to anopponent. It was penned to defend the interests ofmy community.You may not agree with me in my views. Differentcommunities havedifferent views. And ever\- community must haveopportunity toexpress its own views. I have not come here to askyouany grace. I am prepared to stand by theconsequencesof my act. There is no question about it. I am notgoing to tell ^you that I wrote the article in a fit of madness. Iam not alunatic. I have written it believing it my duty towrite in the interestof the public in this way, believing that that wasthe view of thecommunity. I wanted to express it, believing thatthe interests of thecommunity would not be otherwise safeguarded.Believe me when I say

File1-Tilak Trial:;hat it was both in the interest of the people andGovernmentthat this view should be placed before them. If youhonestly goto the question like that it will be your duty togive a veidict fonot guilty, whatever may be your opinion about me,even if you dislikeme as much as you can. I know I am not a personagrata withthe Government ; but that is no reason why I shouldnot havejustice. My personality is not the question. Thequestion is oneof intention and that is what you have to decide,not his Lordship.Juries in England have returned verdicts against thedirections of Judges.You might think that Government has launched thisprosecution, andsometimes lower officers consider a sanction astantamount to amandate. I think that that view will not be taken inthis case. I am sureof it; and I am sure his Lordship will so directyou. Government forits own purposes likes certain things to be done andcertain thingsnot to be done, but the Government policy is notalways justifiedby the principles of Law and Justice. Here it is nota question of conveni-ence, it is not a question of expediency, but aquestion of Justice pure andsimple. If you look at the question from thisstandpoint then much ofthe misunderstanding, much of the dust that islikely to be raised by the

File1-Tilak TrialProsecution about this question, will be cleared np.The matter is to belooked at from one standpoint and one standpointonly. And that standpoint is to do justice. I.ask whether in your ownheart of hearts, underthecircumstances, you think that you would not havewritten like this. If youwere placed in my position and if you had beenimpelled by my circum-stances to take up the defence of your communitywhat would you havedone ? As 1 told you it is a question like, that;you must place yourselves

S4<

iu my positiou and then judge of my motives and myintention. Ifyou find by going over the whole of the incidentsthat my intention ispure, there is no other course open to you but toreturn a verdict of notguilty. I shall presently show you that thetranslations that are placedbefore you are wrong, — I will not say intentionallywrong, but I willsay that they are wrong and very highly prejudicialto the Defence.I am not going to say that the translator wasactuated by any bad motive*I cannot say that; but the result is there and it isruinous to theDefence. Whatever the words may mean, it is aquestion of intention.You ought to be very careful in ascribing intention

File1-Tilak Trialto any one. If theresults are uot harmful it is 5'our bounden duty tosuppose that the intentionis good ; even in the case where they are harmfulyou cannot say that theintention was necessarily bad. I will read to youfrom Stephens, Historyof Criminal Law in the case of the Dean of St.Assaph. What do youfind in this case ? Killing may be an offence ; itmay amount to culpablehomicide not amounting to murder ; or it may becaused by a rash act. Ifit is proved to yon that a man A has merely killedB, you cannot returna verdict of murder. Mere killing is not murder andmerely taking awaya purse is not theft. The circumstances under whichthe man takes awaythe purse are materially relevant or necessary to betaken into considera-tior) > It is the duty of the Jury not to inferintention merely from thetaking of the purse. The Jury must know that he tookit with awicked intention. Of course in this case nodiscontent or dis-affection has been proved to have been caused andthe procedure here isslightly different. The Penal Code has now definedall crimes ; sothere is no necessity to infer wicked intention.When the Sections arenamed that serves the purpose. There has been noevidence placedbefore you that any discontent has been broughtabout. You have toinfer it from the writing. That procedure is I think

File1-Tilak Trialnot legal nor equitablenor moral. " The maxim that a man intends thenatural consequences ofhis acts is usually true ; but it may be used as away of saying that becauserecklessness to probable consequences is morally asbad as an intention toproduce those consequences, the two things ought tobe called by thesame name, and this is at least an approach to alegal fiction. It isone thing to write with a distinct intention toproduce disturbancesand another to write violently and recklessly matterlikely toproduce disturbances. " p. 360 Stephen. So the twothingsare not the same. Those are the words stated there.You cannotinfer any intention from the writings themselves. AsI saidbefore give it a scale value ; and if the totalaccumulating evidence comesto sixteen Annas in a Rupee convict me. Thepublication is only onefactor in judging of a criminal intention. Theremust be a distinctcriminal intention to justify a verdict of wickedintention. So what 1 havesaid amounts to this that this intention can not beinferred from merelythe fact of publication but from surroundingcircumstances ; and betweenthese two lies the Liberty of the Press, the wholeLiberty of the Press.

File1-Tilak Trial85

The Liberty of the Press is not guarded b^ theSection. The Law saysalways infer intention from the publication, butthen there would be noliberty. Liberty means that you must take all thecircumstances intoconsideration. It is upon you that the Liberty ofthe Press depends.

The Court Adjourned till Thursday.

FOURTH DAY.

TJmrsday, the 16th July 1908,

Proceedings commenced at 11-30 A.M.

Mr. Tilak said :-Before we begin today I would liketo make a requestto your Lordship about the books and papers whichhave been put inand those which have not been put in. I request thatthe other books andpapers which have been retained may, if theProsecution has no objection,be returned as they are wanted at Poona in theoffice for the purposeof continuing the paper.

Mr. Branson: — I have no objection, my Lord; we have

File1-Tilak Trialno wish to re-tain any papers and books that have not been put in,just as I statedyesterday that the compositors might go back toPoona.

His Lordship: — They may be restored to the Accused.

Mr. Tilak continuing his address then said: —

My Lord and gentlemen of the Jury, I explained toyou yesterdaywhat my view of Sec. 124 A was and it becomesnecessary in view of thedifficulty placed in my way to anticipate some ofthe objections whichmight probably be raised by the Prosecution becauseI shall not have theright of replying afterwards. In anticipating theseobjections perhaps Imay state something which the Prosecution might nothave in its mind.But I cannot help that. I have to state the case infull and as I haveno right of reply I have to anticipate theobjections and reply to themalso. Had the learned Advocate-General summed up thecase before Ibegan to address you, the difficulty might have beenremoved, Butthe law allows that privilege to the Prosecution andthis difficultyhas been created not entirely by the Prosecution,but by the law thatobtains. I stated yesterday that the word 'attempt'is not defined.It is the most important word. The general plea is

File1-Tilak Trialthat in Seditioncases it is enough to look at the intention andpretend that theintention should be gathered from the legal maximthat a manintends the natural consequences of his acts. I willtry to show youthat that is not the case. The word 'attempt'necessarily postulatesthe idea of a premeditated action having a definiteend in view. Ina case tried in this Court in 1900 before the ChiefJustice, he saidthat an attempt implies an end in view. So also wehave JusticeStephen saying that a crime must be in view. ^It isa contradiction

8(J

in terms to say that a man attempted to do what hehad neverin view. To prove an attempt there should be directevidenceof the end and object in view. The object in viewgoes by thename of motive. The man must intend it and that mustbe his endin view. There is also another factor which has tobe kept in mindviz. that an attempt, legal attempt, is onlycomplete when successis prevented from any cause external to the will ofthe man. He must beprevented from carrying out his object by causesbeyond his control

File1-Tilak Trialand perhaps which he never, anticipated. lu thepresent case there hasbeen no evidence to show that this attempt failed onaccount of something else. I think in a Sedition case it isabsolutely necessaryto give this evidence. There ought to be someevidence before youto that effect. Did the attempt fail ? All theelements of an offencemust be proved and it must be proved that theattempt failed fromcertain causes not in the control of the man whomade it. Absolutely noevidence has been brought by the Prosecution to showthat this attemptfailed because the Government interfered or becausethe people were notwilling to listen to what I had to say. It isseriously urged in suchcases that the attempt need not be successful. Itake this to be a verymeaningless direction. You charge a man with havingexcited disaffec-tion, or with the alternative charge of havingattempted to excitedisaffection. You are told that if there is nosuccess you may.commit him under the latter part of the Section. Itold youyesterday that the first part of the Section is notapplicableto this charge and I claim acquittal on that part.Attempt includesboth intention and motive. Without an end in viewthere can beno attempt. I will explain it to you by taking acommon illustration. I

File1-Tilak Trialintend to go to the Bori Bunder station and my endin view is to goto Poona. Object is the ultimate end in view. Thatis motive; and my firstcontention is that the word attempt includes bothintention and motiveand both have to be considered in coming to aconclusion as to wheJ:her aman has made an attempt. The motive and intention,it is eventually•urged, must be looked at in the light of the maximthat a man intendsthe natural. consequences of his acts. Of course itis a beautiful maxim, butit is not a reliable guide. As I explained yesterdayI take attempt to meanall acts including motive, including intention andall acts which wouldhave led to the commission of an offence, had theperson committingthe offence not been prevented by an extraordinaryagency from carrying hisintention into practice. There are of course certaincases which show thatan attempt need not be carried so far that successwould have followedhad something else not interfered at the last point,i. e. up to the penulti-mate point; that it may be short of penultimate. Toillustrate, say there areten stages in an act. It is not necessary to carrythe attempt to the ninthstage; it is quite enough if it is carried to thesixth stage. There are cer-tain decisions on this point v/hich are likely to bequoted against meand for that reason I must explain. I will read toyou a case before I give my

File1-Tilak Trialexplanation. It is the case that I referred toyesterday, the case of Varjivandasreported in No. 30 Punjab Law Reports page 225. Thisis a case of attempt-ing to kill. A man ran after another man with an axein his hand; he

87

•was only four paces behind. The defence was thatbeing four paces ofi hemight have been induced to give up his intention andthe accusedplaced in locus penitentie.

Mr. Branson: — May I ask who were the Judges ?

Accused: — The Judges are not given here. It is onpage 735 of theFourth Edition. (Reads down to "inteference fromwithout.") There arecertain Sections in the Indian Penal Code which makean attempt punish-able as the crime itself. There is Section 511 underwhich the punish-ment is much less, about half the length of the termassigned for theoffence. There are two kinds of attempts punishableunder the IndianPenal Code; one is the full attempt and the other issomething less.lu a case of murder how are we to distinguishbetween the two,whether the attempt is a full attempt or somethingless. Now the testfor distinguishing between the two is this. A man

File1-Tilak Trialdoes a thing or onlyattempts that thing and yet the person may beequally punishable. Wherethe punishment is thus equal the attempt must becarried to the ultimatestage; but where the punishment is less ( half orquarter ) then you mightsay that the attempt may not be carried to the lastpoint. For instanceSec. 124 A speaks of 'attempt' but it does not saythat a man may escapefrom the consequences if it is only half made. A manmay be chargedwith an attempt to commit an offence under Sec. 124A. The meaningof the word attempt in that Section however is quitedifferent from itsmeaning in Sec. 511. Section 511 is somewhat wider (quotes the Section.*' Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishableby this Code withtransporation or imprisonment or to cause such anoffence to be com-mitted, and in such attempt does any act towards thecommissionof the offence, shall, where no express provision ismade by thisCode for the punishment of such attempt, be punishedwithtransporation or imprisonment of any descriptionprovided for theoffence for a term of transporation or imprisonmentwhich mayextend to one half of the longest term provided forthat offence orwith such fine as is provided for the offence orwith both.") There youhave distinctly a lower state of attempt, an attempt

File1-Tilak Trialnot carried to its utmostlimit. No act may be carried in its preparation tothe final stage or even tothe penultimate stage to make it an attempt under511. Under Sec. 124Athat definition cannot be adopted; there the attemptmust be a full attempt.A man must be prevented from carrying out his objectby some extraordi-nary agency as it is said here. (Reads from BengalL,av/ Reports30.) Hence the Prosecution must show that but forsome extraneousact the attempt would have succeeded. They havefailed to showthat; and having failed to show that they cannot askyouto find me guilty under Sec. 124A, There is noevidence beforeyou to show that I did not succeed because some onecamein my way. I am going to show you further on that mymotive was quitea different one. In this case, taking the case as itis, the charge men-tioES only an attempt, and the Prosecution is notentitled to succeed un-less it shows that this attempt would have leencarried on and wouldhave developed into an offence but that it wasprevented by extra-

88

neons causes. There are cases in whicli it is heldthat an attempt need

File1-Tilak Trialnot be carried to its last point; but that is underSec. 511. If you wantto convict a man under 124A it must be shown to havebeen carried to-the last stage. I am not charged under Sec. 511. Itmay be a mistakebut there it is. I am charged under Sec. 124A andnot under Sec. 511.Another point is also very important; they will saythat I am making aconfusion and muddling up intention and motive; andthat by thus con-founding the two I am giving all false law to theJury. That is the pur-port of the objection raised by Stephens againstErskine tn the Dean ofSt. Asaph's case fReads — "If you ask the Jury totake motive intoconsideration.")

His Lordship; — The reference to the Puujab Case waswrong. Ifind the Volume is 39 and not 30.

Accused: — It may be wrongly quoted here.

His Lordship : —The case is quoted here.

Mr. Branson; — The reference is quite tight, youwould see that thecase is 30 but the volume is 39.

His Lordship: — I see; it is case No. 30, volume No.39.

Mr. Tilak continuing said: — Now it is urged,gentlemen, that in suchcases the jury ought to find intention and motive

File1-Tilak Trialseparately. The motiveof the man may be good. A man may be good. A man maybecome a thiefwith the object of giving the money in charity. Hisintention, however, wasto commit theft although his motive was good. Thereis no reason why theman should not be convicted of theft. That isexactly the argument usedon page 360 in the History of Criminal Law inEngland, Volume 2.'The second objection that may be urged is that youwould confoundintention and motive, but the objection isunfounded. 1 do notask you to consider any of them alone. Take the twotogether and youare sure of arriving at a correct decision. Stephensis one of the writers whodo not like the present state of the law in England,and observes asfollows in his History of Criminal Law : —

'*A further objection to referring to thedefendant's intention in anycase, and especially in defining the crime of libelwith reference to it, isthat a confusion is sure to occur between intentionsand motives. Indeed inthe many trials for seditious libel which followedthe passing of the libelAct, I have not found an instance in which thedistinction was pointedout. The words are constantly used as if goodmotives and good inten-tions were convertible terms. It is, however,obvious as soon as thematter is mentioned that the two are distinct. A man

File1-Tilak Trialmay be led bywhut are commonly regarded as pure motives to formseditious or eventreasonable intentions, and to express them inwriting, just as he mightbe led to commit theft or murder by motives ofbenevolence. If a man whosteals in order to give away the stolen money incharity, or a manwho kills a child in order to save it fromtemptations of life, is not excusedon account of the nature of his motives, whv shoulda manwho writes a libel

89

calculated and intended to produce a riot beacquitted, because his motive wasgenerous indignation against a real grievance ? Bymaking the intention ofthe writer, the test of his criminality a great riskof this result is incurred.A Jury can hardly be expected to convict a man whosemotives theyapprove and sympthize with, merely because theyregard his intentionwith disapproval. An intention to producedisaffection is illegal, but themotive for such an intention may be one with whichthe Jury wouldstrongly sympathize and in such a case it would behard even to makethem understand that an acquittal would we againsttheir oath."

I do not ask you to take into consideration merely

File1-Tilak Trialmotive or merelyintention. But do not inferthe intention merely fromthe fact that the Arti-cle contains certain words that are likely to beconstrued in a peculiarway. What I say is, do not infer intention by anabstract principle of lawbut from fact. That is my point. I do not want toconfuse you. Motiveis an element to be considered in arriving at theintention. Whatis intention ? Unless you ccnsider the motive fullyyou cannot knowthe intention fully. Intention may be inferred fromthe legal fictionthat a man intends the natural consequences of hisacts. But if there arecircumstances before you to show that the motive ofthe man wasdifferent, then surely you would not be justified inreturning averdict of guilty. Intention and motive are both tobe considered. I amgoing into the the history of the Law directly. Theword in the Sectionis "attempt" (Reads Sec. 124A ) . The words are not"whoever pub-lishes" but "whoever attempts". It does not saymerely "publishes." Ifit did, it would then have the legal addition thatwhoever publishes mustmean the natural consequences of his acts. 'Attempt'means the act carriedto its fullest extent, short only of success. Ofcourse you need not troubleyourself about the success, but you must show thatthere is that kind ofattempt. If there is an inferior attempt you must

File1-Tilak Trialcharge me under Sec.511. I am not charged under Sec. 511, but under Sec.124 A.'So what we have to consider in this case is whetherthe word attemptincludes both intention and motive. That is the ideain the illustrationI gave you about the man who commits theft with thebest motive.If intention and motive are right at the two pointsthe act lies evenlybetween them. If the motive and intention are thesame, it is astraight act. When an offence and an attempt arepunishable with asimilar punishment, the attempt must be carried toits fullest extent.About motive and intention I contend we are bound bythe law as itexists. The word attempt is not defined and unlessthe Legislature takesit into its mind to modify the law, as it did inI897, the Section mustcontinue to mean a full attempt. It may be contendedthat I amexplaining to you a new doctrine and that it isinappropriate and far-fetched, and it is likely to be said that it onlyarises from a certain imagina-tion of mind which the Legislature never intended. Ihave quoted thedefinition of Sir Lawrence Jenkins and of JusticeBatty in Bhala Case, fromthe Bombay Law Reporter of 1900. The word attempt isdefined by thelearned Chief Justice as follows C Reads j. This isthe explanation of at-tempt given to the Jury by the learned Chief Justice

File1-Tilak Trialin a case of sedition.

90

It is also quoted by Mr. Justice Batty who says thatan attempt is apremeditated act short of accomplishment. These arethe three definitionsgiven by the learned Judges and all cf them havebeen given in connectionwith the recent sedition cases. So that, gentlemenof the Jury, what Ihave stated is the correct view of the law. It isnot distorted by me ordrawn by me but it is a correct view of the lawtaken by responsible andlearned Judges and so explained to the Jury intrials where the chargehas been of Sedition. I do not wish to strain thelaw in my own interest inan excited state of mind, but it is the correct lawof the land and so longas the word attempt remains there it will be the lawof the land and mustbe so interpreted.

Now having fortified my position in reply to apossible objection by theProsection ,1 shall place before you the history ofthe trouble which has broughtabout the change of Law in England and I will showyou the way how Juriesin England have been acting. It is often said thatEnglish and Indian Lawis the same. The learned Counsel for the Crown saysthat Sec. 124A is

File1-Tilak Trialthe law as it exists in both countries. I quiteagree with him, but it isnot administered in the same way. And I want to showyou it is with you,gentlemen of the Jury, to administer the lawproperly. The fault will notbe of the law but will be of the Jury in this caseif the law is not properlyadministered. The entire question is left to you foryour decision. Don'tthink that you have not the power. We often speak ofa Judge-made lawbut there is also the Jury-made law, though thatdistinction is not yet to befound in law books. The liberty of the Press isunder the Jury-made law.It is not the law made by Legislature, it is notmade by Judges, it isentirely a Jury-made law. Juries have frequently torefuse to takea particular view of the case inspite of the Judge'scharge to thecontrary. Juries have an independent position, theyhave certain prescribedrights, and they must exercise them. They will failin their duty if they donot do so and deprive the subjects of the protectionagainst the arbitraryuse of power. Juries are the bulwark of our liberty,I want to explain to youby what this result has been achieved as I think youwill be the better ablethereby to discharge your functions as Jurors inthis case. The question,gentlemen of the Jury, first arose in 1792, in whatis known as the Dean ofSt. Assaph's case. It is also known as the Shipeycase. It was in fact a

File1-Tilak Trialremarkable struggle between Jurors, Lawyers,Statesmen and others.They wanted more freedom for the Press and PublicMeetings, but thelaw would not allow it. You, gentlemen, who areEnglishmen know thatyour ancestors fought for this Liberty. During thereign of James IIhe issused a Writ of Indulgence to seven Bishops whorefused toaccept it. They were tried and the Jury persisted inreturning a verdict of' not guilty. ' The Judges did not like it; therewas a row and eventuallythe law of the land prevailed. There Js another caseof the same type.But I am not going to trouble you with all thecases. The case of theDean of St. Asaph was the first case in which thispoint was raised.The old Law of England was this. There were threethings to be consideredin a Seditious Libel case and with two of these,publication and inuendoes,the Jury had to deal ; and the Judges insisted thatthe Jury had nothing to dowith intention. They said if a Jury was satisfiedthat the writings were

91

published and that the inuendoes were correct it wasfor them to say so,and that it was for the Judges to infer intention;and their formula wasthat 'every man intends the natural consequences of

File1-Tilak Trialhis acts.' The Jury said"that is a wrong procedure, we don't agree withyouandwe cannot convictthe man." There was a fight; the Jury's cause wasespoused by LordErskine and the Judges were represented in thiscontroversy by LordMansfield. Those were very troublesome times in 1792during the periodof the French Revolution and the contagion hadspread through all parts ofEurope. It was an exciting time. I think that it wasin 1792 that theFrench Republic was established and it was in 1792that Fox's Libel Actwas passed. That was the general condition of thecountry when theDean of St. Asaph was charged. It was a verypeculiar case. Theobjections in that case, and the arguments of LordErskine in moving fora Writ of Impeachment and a new trial, are regardedas a master-piece ofeloquence and learning combined. I think the timeshere in India areexactly the same as they were in England in 1792.There isunrest. That is admitted. And with the object ofstopping itGovernment thinks that some people must beprosecuted and deportedif possible to the Andamans or to Australia. It isnot convenient, in theiropinion, to have some persons at large. The case isexactly of the same typeas the cases which were tried in England between1792 and 1800, or afew years before 1792. I put it down as 1780. There

File1-Tilak Trialwas then a regularage of prosecutions, a great crop of prosecutionsfor Libel and Sedition justas we have it in India now. A number of cases forSedition were being triedthere as they are now being tried here. The parallelis exact, and thelesson which I wish to draw from it is veryimportant. The trouble aroseat that time in this way. You know Sir WilliamJones, the great traustatorof Shakuntala. He was a Judge of the High Court atCalcutta and wasafterwards a Judge of the Supreme Court. He wrote apamphlet in which,in the form of a dialogue between a farmer and agentleman, the politicalrelations between the Government and the people werediscussed. Hesent it for publication to his brother-in-law theDean of St. Asaph fromCalcutta. There are some extracts from the pamphletgiven in Erskine'sSpeeches Volume 1 pages 97,98 and 99. I am not goingto read to you thewhole dialogue and take up your time; but there isone important pointinit.I will read one paragraph (Reads — " In the year1783, soon after theconclusion of the calamitous war in America, thepublic attention wasveiy warmly and generally turned throughout thiscountry towards thenecessity of a reform in the representation of thepeople in the House ofCommons. Several societies were formed in differentparts of Englandand Wales for the promotion of it; and the Duke of

File1-Tilak TrialRichmond and Mr. Pitt,then the Minister, took the lead in bringing thesubject before Parliament.To render this great national object intelligible tothe ordinary ranksof the people, Sir William Jones, then an eminantbarrister in London,and afterwards one of the Judges of the SupremeCourt of Judicature atBengal, composed a dialogue between a scholar and afarmer as a vehiclefor explaining to common capacities the greatprinciples of society andgovernment, and for showing the defects in therepresentation of the peo-

92

pie in the British Parliament. Sir William Joneshaving married a sisterof the Dean of St. Asaph, he became acquainted withand interested inthis dialogue, and recommended it strongly to acommittee of gentlemenof "Flinlshire who were at that time associated forthe object of reform,where it was read, and made the subject of a vote ofapprobation. TheCourt party, on the other hand, having made aviolent attack upon thiscommittee for the countenance thus given to thedialogue, the Dean ofSt. Asaph, considering (as he himself expressed it)that the best meansof justifying the composition, and those who wereattacked for their ap-

File1-Tilak Trialprobation of it, was to render it public, that theworld might decide thecontroversy, sent it to be printed &c." The objectof this dialoguewas to show that the people were not properlyrepresented inParliament, that Parliament required to be reformed.This wasbefore the Reform Act was passed. The question waswhether Parliamentought to be reformed or not. That phamplet wasplaced before acommittee formed for the purpose of reformingParliament and waspublished. This was regarded as a seditiousprocedure. The whole casecame before a Judge and Jury of the day. The Judgewas Mr. JusticeBuller, the Counsel for the defence was Mr. Erskine.The whole case wasargued and the Judge said that it was for him to saywhether the intentionwas seditious or not and for the Jury to say if itwas published and if theinuendoes were correct. He said it was for the Judgeto say whether itwas libel or no libel. That was in 1792. The Jurywas asked in that case toreturn a verdict of guilty because the pamphlet waspublished and becausethere were certain insinuations in it which castreflections on the then Gov-ernment of England and the Judge thought there was aparticular insinua-tion which showed seditious intention. Mr. Erskinedefended the accusedvery strongly. He said the doctrine was absurd. Hewent into the history of

File1-Tilak Trialthe Criminal Law of England and treated Seditionjust liice murder.It was not merely a question of law. The questionbefore the Courtwas whether there v/as seditious intention which wasnot a question of law,but of mixed law and fact, or of pure fact. It wasentirely a question forthe Jury; you cannot take it from the Judge. LordErskine urged thatthey should not return the verdict just as the Judgeasked them to do.What did the Jury do ? They returned a verdict of "not guilty of seditiousintention", but, they said, if you want the word "guilty " in the verdict,we will say "guilty of publication only''. There wasan interesting conver-sation between Lord Erskine and the Jury as follows:—

Associate: — Gentlemen, do you find the defendantguilty or not ?

Foreman : — Guilty of publishing only.

Mr. Erskine : — You find him guilty of publishingonly ?

A Juror : — Guilty only cf publishing.

Mr. Justice Buller. I believe that is a verdict notquite correct. Youmust explain that one way or the other as to themeaning of the innue-

File1-Tilak Trial93

ndoes. The indictment has stated that G. meansGentlemen, F. Farmer,the King the King of Great Britain, and theParliament the Parliamentof Great Britain.

One of the Jury : — We have no doubt of that.

Mr. Justice Buller : — If you find him guilty ofpublishing, you mustnot say the word only.

Mr. Erskine : — By that, they mean to find there wasno sedition.

A Juror. We only find him guilty of publishing. Wedo not findanything else.

Mr. Erskine. I beg your Lordship's pardon with greatsubmission.I am sure I mean nothing that is irregular. Iunderstand they say, '"Weonly find him guilty of publishing.'

A Juror. Certainly; that is all we do find &c. &.c.

It is an historical dialogue. That was a veryinteresting case. Itwas a struggle between Juries and Statesmen on theone hand,and lawyers and judges on the other. Now althoughthat verdictwas returned by the Jury, the Judge found theaccused guilty andconvicted the man. This was considered to be a wrong

File1-Tilak Trialjudgmentin that case. There were other cases but I am notgoing to take upyour time because I have to refer to cases since1792. In the casejust referred to, Lord Erskine moved for a new trialand to set aside thejudgment. The matter came before Lord Mansfield whoheard LordErskine's arguments but refused the application. He,however, directedthe notice of parliament to the matter and that washow the Fox's LibelAct was passed in 1792. It was taken up iu the Houseof Commons andthe House of Lords. The popular argument was thatthe state of themind in a case of Sedition as in cases of murder andtheft must be left tothe Jury to decide. Judges have certain formuloe. Itsaves the Judgemuch trouble if he has a ready made maxim or legalformula such as"a manimust intend the natural consequences of hisacts. "It is like a doctorprescribing mixture No. lor No. 2. But then what isleft for the jury? Theyhave only to say whether the writing is published ornot and if so whetherthe inuendoes are correct or not. Out of the threequestions two were leftto the Jury and one was left to the Judge. Erskineargued that this was notsound law. It is not in accordance with BritishJustice or tradition.Again where there was struggle between Governmentand the people, theJury in England had to be unanimous. It does not

File1-Tilak Trialmatter whether a Juryis unanimous or not in a case of theft, because theinterests involved arethe interests of a particular person. But as betweenGovernment and thepeople the method of trial by Jury is mostimportant. It is, therefore, thatyou are the bulwark of the liberty of discussion,and of the Press.'Judges are bound down by precedent. The Judgeignores the importanceof the matter and follows the precedent in order tokeep up the current ofthe decisions of his predecessors; and they maintainthese decisionsbecause they say uniformity of practice must bemaintained. They say itis the law of the land ; we cannot change it. As youknow, in England,

94

after a time, the law became fixed and tlielegislature had to ccme inTTill then the Jury must take it into their ownhands. Judges may notknow when this stage is reached, and that is reallyhow the Court ofEquity in England came to be established. Thespecial Court of Equity hasthe matter placed before it now-a-days, andeventually the matter is takento Parliament. Before that, in 1792, the state ofthings was entirelydifferent. The people had to struggle against thisdoctrine and when they

File1-Tilak Trialhad struggled in very many cases, they refused tosay that a man hadbeen guilty of seditious intention. They saidpublication and inuendoeswere proved, but as regards intention they did notsay anything. It wasnot a verdict of guilty. It was a verdict ofpublication only. The matter waseventually taken to Parliament. Lord Mansfieldrepresented the views ofthe Judges in the house of Lords while Mr. Erskinetook up the cause ofthe people in the House of Commons. The Act waspassed in 1792 and isconsists of four sections. It was stated that it wasnot the Judge who was todecide intention from the article, and inconsequence of the Act the Juryhad to decide upon it. Now that is Act 32 of GeorgeIV. Chapter360 and the enactment can be found in Erskine'sspeeches. I v^^illread the Act to you. It is only a short Act,containing 4 clauses.(See Appendix. ) It is to be found in the StatuteBook and inother works of Criminal Law. The controversy thatthe jury shoulddecide the question of intention is the chief pointof the 1st clause.Now the jury had to give a verdict on the wholematter, including inten-tion, finally taking intention to be a question offact and not of law.So you see in a clear legislative enactment that youwill not becharged to find the prisoner guilty. It is left toyour discretion. You will not

File1-Tilak Trialbe charged by the Judge to say by reading thedocuments or acting on themaxim that a man intends the consequences of hisdeeds that the accusedis guilty or not guilty in this case. You must takethe surrounding cir-cumstances. The Judge may give you his opinion ornot. In England it is thepractice not to express an opinion. Of course youmust be guided by him. Hemust give you his assistance. This Act is notintended for the purpose ofexciting Juries to rise against the Judges. It isnot intended to excite dis-affection between Judges and Juries. But you cannotbe asked by the Prose-cution or Judge to find that since the maxim is anaccepted maxim, a manmust be presumed to intend the consequences of hisact. There you neednot go any further than this Act. It was all decidedby Fox's Act of 1792.Pitt was Prime Minister at that time, and Hansard'sParliame-ntary report for that time is very interestingreading in regard tothis matter. The Act leaves discretionary power tothe Judge.The Act says that a Judge may or may not give hisopinion. Forsome time the practice was for Judges to give theiropinion. After-wards they thought that it was a discretionarymatter and it was betterin the interests of justice not to giv^ an opinion.That is the law inEngland. Those times were exciting times, and unrestprevailed

File1-Tilak Trialin England, and in ever\' other country in Europe.It was the time ofthe French Revolution. Of course this struggle wasvery keen andit was an act of wise statesmanship to solve thematter in theinterests of the people, and the Parliament took thematter in hand and

95

passed the law which has been in force from 1792upto the present time?I will refer to a few cases after that in order toshow how that Act wasadministered and was carried out in generalpractice. Since that da^- itis now entirely in the hands of the Jury to return averdict of guilty ornot guilty. If you think the man is not honest, thata man is not writingin the interest of the public, and is a fanatic, andthat he goes againstthe current of public opinion, then return a verdictof guilty; but if youare convinced, not merely by publication but byconsidering all thesurrounding circumstances, if you come to theconclusion that by anythingthe man says his real object has been contrary, youmust return a verdictof not guilty. You move among the people, you knowwhat is going on.As Mr. Erskine said, it is impossible for a Jury tomisconceive the mo-tives of the accused. The authorities may, the

File1-Tilak TrialExecutive Government maymisconceive, but it is impossible for the Jury to doso-

So therefore you can never be dependent upon thesupport of an arbi-trary Government, What is the real safe-guard ofliberty in England? TheJury. If any 12 men taken at random from mycountrymen say that myconduct is blamable certainly I have no right tocomplain. I am livingamongst them, and if the people around me don't likemy writings or myviews, I have no right to force them down theirthroats. That was theprovision of the English Statute enacted by the JuryAct of 1792, and thatStatute safeguards the liberty of tbe English peoplein matters of speech,in matters of meetings, of public discussion, and ofpublic writings. Thewhole test is this and that is what is laid down byIvord Kenyonwho says the law of sedition in England is that youcan write any-thing or say anything that 12 of your countrymenapprove of. The un-animity of the Jury is another safeguard. Happilyfor India the law is thesame here in Bombay. I am glad in one sense that thecase has beenbrought to Bombay, and that it is to be tried byJudge and Jury, and notby a Magistrate. One of the undesirable reforms of1898 is that the offenceof sedition is triable by a First Class Magistrate.That is the law and I

File1-Tilak Trialknew that the Presidency Magistrate could have triedme. And it is exactlyfor this reason that the law should be administeredupon a more equi-table basis, that these cases are brought before theHigh Court, or a Ses-sions Court and tried by a Jury or Assessors. And ifthere is any safeguardfor the people it is because their own countrymenare empanelled uponthe Jury and asked to say if the writings areseditious or not. If you libela private individual it is defamation; if you libelGovernment it is sedition.That is the necessary qualification.

Now the first case that arose in England after 1793is the case ofRegina vs. Lambert and Perry in 1793. It is the casewhich has beenreferred to by Counsel for the Crown and was the 2ndcase against thesegentlemen. That case was reported in 22 StateTrials, Col. 9 85. Itis reported also in Erskine Vol. 1, page 405. Therewas a -second caseagainst the same men referred to by Counsel for theCrown. That was atthe end of 1810, and is reported in State Trials onp. 305. Now gentle-men, the facts of the case are that these men wereEditors and Proprie-tors of the ''^ Morning Chronicle, ^"^ It is aNewspaper case (Reads).The trial was the first after Fox's Act of 1792. Nowthere are certain

File1-Tilak Trial

9G

statements here veiy similar. Reform of Governmentwas asked for (readsdown to "we say that the expenses mnst be reduced.")The first demand isfor economy, just as we are demanding it here.(Reads down to "dignity of thenation" j. AVe are complaining of the same thinghere. It is no use extendingthe limits of British India, while famines andpoverty are ruling in the land.( Reads down to " Military extravagance"). That isone of the com-plaints made at the Congress in India today. In thesame strain thiso-oes on to ask for reforms in a peaceful andconstitutional way.Now there is a summary of this in Stephens' Historyof CriminalLaw Vol. 2 P. 367 (Reads). That was matter publishedin 1793,immediately after the passing of this Libel Act.What do you thinkwould have been the result of such publicationbefore 1792? Every Judgein England would have pronounced it seditious.Fortunately the Acthad been passed and was a few months old. Mr.Erskine appeared forthe defence and made a very eloquent speech (reads-"Mr. Erskinerepeated the very arguments which he had used on thepreviousoccasions ¦¦ ). These were exciting times. It wasthe time ofthe French Revolution. The jury returned a verdict

File1-Tilak Trialof guilty ofpublication. Lord Kenyon would not receive it. Hesaid " that is not averdict I shall accept from you ". The first verdictamounted to 'guiltywith no malicious intent'. Finally the Jury returneda verdict of notguilty. The case is reported in No. 22 State Trials,Col. 985. This ishow the proceedings are reported here (Reads from "the jury then with-drew " down to " a verdict of not guilty"). That wasthe first caseafter the Act of 1792 was passed. Another veryinteresting case of sedi-tion was Rex. Vs. Reeves, reported in 26 StateTrials Col. 530. It is alsoreferred to in the history of Criminal Law inEngland by Stephens, p. 367."The immediate effect of the Libel Act was, asappears from thesecases to make the Juries ex post facio censors ofthe press. " It iswritten in a despondent tone. He did not approve ofthe law as itwas. I might remind you that it was Stephen whoframed the Penal CodeCode for India in 1870, and he framed Section 124 Aunder which I amcharged. He also framed the Contract Act and he wasa great writer anda learned man. He was of the old Tory type. He didnot approve ofgovernment by the people. He believed the old directgovernmentwas the best. He looked upon Monarchy as a tree, andtheHouse of Lords, and the House of Commons as only

File1-Tilak Trialbranches, or orna-mental foliage of the tree. Mind, it was aprosecution made by thesanction of the Parliament. It was an observationagainst Parliamentand its institutions, f Reads down to " return thisverdict " j. LordEllenborough was the Attorney prosecuting, and LordKenyon was thepresiding Judge. In fact the Jury did not agree withthe view whichwas propounded in the pamphlet, but they thought itwas the rightof every Englishman to plainly express his view, themotive being of areformation of the English Constitution. He washimself the author ofa Histroy of English law. That being his motive theJury said he was notguilty. So you see what the right of a Jury had beensince 1792, I wastalking to you of intention and motive; if you areconvinced that themotive is good, that it honestly asks for the reformof certain institutions it

97

is not seditious. You may not like these views orthose reforms. Youmight have quite different views from the writer;that is immaterial. Youcannot find him guilty on that. The question is notdifference of opinionwhich you have to decide. Today I am in the dock foropinions which I

File1-Tilak Trialhave promulgated. If you want reform, you might bein the dock tomorrow !You have not to decide whether you accept my viewsor not; you mayconsider it to be an absurd view, a view that oughtnot to have beenput in that way. That is a different questionaltogetner. What I say iswhat liberty I have now you will have tomorrow; whatliberty you woulddeprive me of by your verdict will be denied to youtomorrow. It is aquestion of the rights of individuals to propoundcertain views;.whether those views are right or wrong, you mustconsider this fromthe point of view of a common citizen-whether everycitizen shouldor should not have the right to express his views.We have totry to convert the majority to our views. We try tocreate andkeep up public opinion. If it is in the direction ofreform and progressyou are bound to return a verdict of not guilty. Youmay be quiteprejudiced against the man in society. If it were acase of having adinner with the man it would be a different matter.But this is a questionof the right of public discussion, to which you areequally entitled as myself,and it is from that point of view that you have todecide the question.

Another case to which I will refer you is Rex Vs.John Burns in 1886reported in 26. State Trials Col. 596 f Reads from

File1-Tilak Trial"in this case the prisonerwas charged with sedition") . This was about ameeting for a political pur-pose , for advocating certain political re forms.Now at that meeting the defend-ant was reported to have said that it was the objectto obtain reform "byfair means if posj:ible" ("Reads down to "would shedhis blood on the fieldor on the scaffold"). The speaker, gentlemen, istoday the Presidentof the Board of Trade in the English Cabinet. Hesaid thatthey were moving in a perfectly constitutionalmanner but-(reads"if the Government continues obstinate" down to"scaffold").I am quite sure that if this case had "Secured in1792, the Judgewould have said " this is sedition, and the mau mustbe depor-ted ". But the Jury knew the man and for whatpurpose the Associationto which he belonged was established. It was for theliberty of the peoplethat they were fighting. They knew the state of thecountry at the time.Language like that was held innocent, and not likelyto excite feelingsof disaffection. I will read to you the verdict. Itis a verdict of notguilty. I will now refer you to another case takenup in 1810, anda passage from which was read to you by the learnedCounsel for theCrown. It was the second case against Lambert andPerry. I read to youan abstract from the summing up of Lord EHenborough,

File1-Tilak Trialwho definedwhat are the elements of the liberty of the Press,and the license ofthe Press. The extract was quoted to you to showwhat was the liberty ofthe Press according to Law and what was license. Butthere is no use inquoting from the summing up of a Judge; you want toknow what theverdict of the Jury is. The liberty of the Pressdepends upon thecommonsense view and not the view of the law. TheJury has not todecide merely from the summing up of the Judge. TheJudges have

98

to take the verdict of the Jury. This is thesafeguard of liberty.^You are the law-makers in this case. As I have saidit is Jury-made law, and not Judge- made law. In 1810, just ahundred years ago,the " Manchester Chronicle " was charged for thesecond time (Readsdown to " total change of system ") ; just the sameas we have been as-king for. If Bureaucracy be a Policy, Bureaucracy isnot the Government.'It is a system of Government. ( Reads on down to "the whole course ofhis policy "J. That is the dictum of LordEllenborough. If we say that aking is mistaken in his policy, that is not Sedition( Reads verdict of

File1-Tilak Trialjury; also reads Lord EHenborough's charge down to*' degrades hisMajesty ".) It is a question of intensity. There areerrors and deficienciesin Government, there is nothing seditious in sayingit. There would beno progress otherwise. England would not have beenwhat she is butfor the liberty of the Press. (Reads down to '*Rebellion ".j The juryimmediately pronounced them not guilty. Gentlemen, Iwish that theCounsel for the Prosecution had quoted the paragraphthat I have justread to you. Never mind; now we will proceed to thecharge of Lord El-lenborough. I shall read it to you. (Reads ^. Thesame view of the Lawprevails upto now. There have been other cases wherethe prisoners havebeen convicted. I don't want to conceal that fromyou; possibly the Prose-cution might read to you some of them. The principleis established inEngland and, gentlemen, I ask you to put it intopractice in India as thenet consequence of the word " attempt " in section124A. I have readthis passage to you with the object of informing youthat the word won'tstand alone if you value the meaning which I havesuggested. There arecases since the publication of the Fox's Libel Actin 1792 and the samelaw is followed here. I shall presently read to yousome findings of theJury in libel cases. These are tried by means of aJury and a Judge. I think

File1-Tilak Trialit is the practice in this Court to leave the wholematter to you. Thatmeans that the law here is the same as in Englandsince 1792. Thatmeans that the Judge will sum up and leave the wholematter to you.'That means that you will not* act on the directionthat a man is to be 'presumed " to mean the consequences of his act." TheJury has theright to decide not merely from the legal fictionbut from a general con-sideration oi the whole. There are various othercircumstances. Whatis the motive of the publication, what are the otherfacts which influencethe writer ? If his motives are good, if he istrying to secure constitutionalrights of the people, trying in a fair way and apersevering manner, he isentitled to express his views fully and fearlessly.It would not be fair toobstruct him in expressing these views. It would becoming in the wayof the progress of the country to do so. These areyour traditions. Weadmire them. So long as we admire them you arepleased, but as soon asjwe begin to imitate them you call it seditious.That is what Englisheducation has done for the community. What doesGovernment say/here ? Well, since you try doing things that way itis rather inconvenientto the men in power. They have long enjoyed absolutearbitrary power.We are fighting against it. It is a great strugglebetween the bureaucracy

File1-Tilak Trialand the people. We want you to support it. We wantyou to support ushere in the same way as the Juries did in England. Ihave read to you

99

the views of the English Juries in 1792. It took along time for the juriesto establish this principle that it is for youfjuries) to say what issedition and what is not. Make the law as strict asyou can. The lawwill take care of itself. We are not so concernedwith the law as with therights of the Jury. So long as we have our ownpeople in the Jury weare quite certain that the law may be of itselfrigid, but that will not availin the administration of justice. That is why youare called the o-uardiansof the liberty of the Press. I will read to you fromCox's Criminal I^aw,page 51, the charge of Lord Fitzgerald in the caseRex Vs. Sullivanf Reads down to "arbitrary power"). ''Arbitrarypower" that is theexpression I used some time ago. You are theprotectors of the press.It is a sacred duty which you have to perform. Youhave to judge of

put an innocent interpreta-

File1-Tilak Trialtion upon it if you can. It is a principle of I^awthat every man isconsidered innocent till he is proved guilty. Thatis the law that theyfollowed in this case. In the summing up the Judgesaid (Reads fromthe charge ) . We have a right to complain if Indiais to be gov-erned in a completely arbitrary manner. But India isgoverned bya nation having respect for the liberty and thefreedom of the Press,which sacrificed some of its best men for it.Although the Bureaucracyhere may feel the inconvenience of the principle, itis your duty, gentlemen"to stand between us of the press and those peopleand protect us. Youare the guardians of our liberties. I say we wantlocal self-Government,'local Home-rule, whatever you may call it.Government at once says 'therethey are; they are discontented and they want ashare in the Government.They are acting disrespectfully.' Is it notderogatory to our self-respectand prestige ? And if the matter is to be consideredlike this and the lawof sedition is to be considered so rigidly as this,in every case the accusedwill be found guilty. We had better not have trialsat all. It willremain in the hands of Government to send a man tothe Andamanswithout trial. It is not sedition to complain toGovernment and toask for a share in its powers. It is not seditiousto find fault with

File1-Tilak Trialor to advocate the reformation of theadministration. If that is thelaw in England it is also the law here. If theEnglish Juries take thisview of the law I request you to act in the samespirit and take the sameview and say that although you have come out toIndia, you have thesame view and respect for the same traditions thatthe English Juries have.Further on you will find (Reads "province of thePress" "down to protec-tion from the jury"). There are some who say thatjuries have nothing todo with motive, whether the writing was intended forpublicationand whether the writer was actuated by a desire tofurther the causeof the people. I say that they don't understand thelaw on thesubject of the liberty of the Press. This much isallowed. I havenot come here to ask an indulgence of any kind atyourhands. If you think that I am writing, that I amfighting, for theliberty of the people, for a change in theconstitution, for a reformof Government, then it will be your duty to return averdict of not guilty.

100

AVhether you approve of my views or not, so long asyou are convincedof my good motive you need not depend on the legal

File1-Tilak Trialfiction which Ihave referred to previously. It is not your businessto depend upon thisfiction of the law which has been adopted in anumber of convictions, asthere are also a number of exceptions to it. FinallyI refer you to thecase of Rex. Vs. Burns, Hyndman and Ors, which isreported in Vol. 16of Cox's Criminal Cases at page 365. It was tried byJustice Cave and hischarge to the jury is given here.

The direction of the Judge on this point v/as asfollows : — ' ' I am unableto agree entirely with the Attorney General when hesays that the realcharge is that though these men did not incite orcontemplate disorder,yet, as it was the natural consequence of the wordsthey used, they areresponsible for it. In order to make out the offenceof speaking seditiouswords, there must be a criminal intent upon the partof the accused; theymust be words spoken with a seditious intent ; andalthough it is a goodworking rule, to say that a man must be taken tointend the natural conse-quences of his acts, and it is very proper to ask aJury to infer, if there isnothing to show the contrary, that he did intend thenatural consequencesof his acts, yet, if it is shown from othercircumstances that he did notactually intend them, I do not see how you can ask ajury to act uponwhat has then become a legal fiction. X X X x The

File1-Tilak Trialmaxim that aman intends the natural consequences of his acts isusually true, but it maybe used as a way of saying that, because recklessindifference to probableconsequence is morally as bad as an intention toproduce those consequen-ces, the two things ought to be called by the samename, and this is atleast an approach to a legal fiction. It is onething to write with a distinctintention to produce disturbances and another towrite violently and reck-lessly matter likely to produce disturbances." Now,if yen apply that lastsentence to the speaking ot words, of course it isprecisely applicable tothe case now before you. it is one thing to speakwith a distinct intentionto produce disturbances, and another thing to speakrecklessly and \'iolentlyof what is likely to produce disturbances (R. v.Burns 1886) (16 Cox C. CJ366.) The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty^

The next case to which I wish to draw your attentionis a case inAmerica recorded by Stephens in his History of theCriminal L,aw. Whatliappened in England happened in America. This legalfiction was takenIrom England to America by the settlers. It occuredin 1735. TheAmericans had not yet established their Independenceand the ColonialOovernment there tried to carry out this fictionfrom old records. The samearbitrary power characterised the Government in

File1-Tilak TrialAmerica. The case wasthat of Zenger reported in 12 American State Trialspage 675 in the year1735. I have not got that book here but I will readto you a passage fromthat trial as quoted in a newspaper here fiomBooth's History of NewYork. The facts of the case are very interesting (Reads "In 1734Cressby, then Governor of New York" &c. Vide DefenceExhibit no. ^The acts of Government were very severelycriticised. It was not arepublican form of Government then, but a Colonialform of Government.'Hamilton occupied the same position in this case asErskine in England.'Hamilton fought for the Liberty of the Press inAmerica as Erskine

101

fought for it in England. This was a case thatdepended upon innuendoes,not so much upon direct attack on the Government,but it was contendedthat certain innuendoes introduced into the articlasor invented orwhatever you may call it were intentional. Then thedoctrine itlaid down was that '' A libel was so much moredangerous if true. Don'ttake the person into account nor the state ofsociety into account: don'ttake the motives into account. Take the writings andupon them convict

File1-Tilak Trialhim." ( Reads " in this case the Governor became therepresentative ofthe Crown "J. For that purpose the Government isrepresented by theCrown, In this country every policeman calls himselfa representativeof the Crown. C Reads down to " libel is notsedition";. Innuendoesgo for nothing, that is what Erskine contended inthe Dean ofSt. Asaph's case. And there are besides otherauthorities such as Locke onGovernment, which say that taken by themselves theyare not seditious.There is a passage in the Bible which says "there isno God etc." If youleave out "the fool hath saidinhis heart" then it isheld to be blasphemy.If a man writes a pharse like that from the Biblethere are people whowould bring a charge of blasphemy against him andask the Jury to give averdict of guilty. Hamilton's argument was similarto that (Reads on downto "there's the innuendo";. So by the help of theseinnuendoes innocentwords in any writing can easily be converted into aseditious libel.

The Court then rose for tiffin .^

( Resumed after tiffin on Thursday ) .'

My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, I think that Ihave sufficientlylaid before you my view of the meaning of Sec. 124 A

File1-Tilak Trialand I am not goingto try your patience further on the point. It is adelicate matter, and hisLordship would direct you on this point in summingup the case. Thereare some questions which I should like to call yourattention to, and thereare some points of 153 A which I think I ought to gointo at once as they arepoints which I desire to raise in my defence. Myview of the law as I havestated is that you cannot merely read the Articles,apply the legal fictionand give a verdict. There are a number ofcircumstances to be considered.For what purposes were the articles written? Werethey written for thepurpose of exciting disaffection ? If you think thatthey were writtenwith the motive or object of exciting disaffectionthen you are entitled toreturn a verdict of guilty. If I succeed in showing,which I hope to do,that these Articles were written for a definitepurpose, a purpose which isperfectly legitimate, then you are bound to return averdict in my favour.Let us come to that point. I have already given youthe history of theLaw of Libel in England during the last hundredyears and I think the lawin England and India is the same. The Jurymen arethe real Judges.This is the fact that has made libel actions so rarein England.If you take that view and enter the same spirit asthe jurymen in EnglandI dare say that libel actions will be as rare in

File1-Tilak TrialIndia as in England.

102

Im the case which I quoted to you yesterday — caseof the Dean of St.Asaph-the question was what was the purpose forwhich the pamphlet waspublished ? Mr. Erskine told the Jury that if thatpurpose was proved therewas no reason to doubt that. Now in the articlesbefore you there are clearindications of the purpose for which these articleshave been written. I sayclear indications. The first article states thereason for which I have¦written it. It is Ex. C in this case and is dated12th May 1908 and atpage 5 at the bottom of the page you will find itstated. There is a clear_ indication at the bottom of the article of thepurpose for which the articleI has been written . Why should you disbelieve it ?What evidence has; been produced by the Prosecution to show that thisis not really the reasonj for the writing of this article ? Absolutely noevidence except the legalI fiction. There is no reason for you to supposethat a man has any otherend in view. It is clearly stated in the articleitself. You find that on the firstpage line 28. I would come to the question of thetranslations afterwards.They are faulty. You see that I am answering theobjections raised in the

File1-Tilak TrialAnglo-Indian Press. Then you will see on page 3,Hne13th a clear statement.Then again there is a reference in the articleshowing that the article iswritten for the purpose of refuting some of thearticles which appearedin the Anglo-Indian Press and for the purpose ofgiving correct advice,according to my view, to Government at this time.You may think thatif I have advice to give I should go and say this tothe officers ; but; that is not the duty of the newspaper man.Whatever I have to say I sayin my newspaper. I am notpaid for visiting officersand I do not knowhow my visits would be received. I express my viewson pubHc matters ofinterest frankly; and that would be expressing theviews of my community.When I have done that I have done but my duty.Newspapers, as I havesaid, stand between the arbitrary power and and thepeople, and the pressrepresents public opinion to Government and this isparticularly necessaryin the administration of the country. Government mayhave their officialsto represent the view of the people to them, but theview of the situationfrom the official stand — point necessarily getscorrupted.

An opinion must be represented in an independentspirit if it his to haveany value. Now place yourself in my j^osition.Bomb-outrages take place atthe beginning of the twentieth century in Bengal. I

File1-Tilak Trialrepresent a large por-tion of the community in my paper ; Khudiram Bosehas just been sen-tenced; and I have to express myself on the subject;that is my duty,whether the times are excited or peaceful ; and ifthe times are times ofunrest, it becomes the duty of a newspaper man toimpress upon Govern-ment the causes of that unrest. It is a ver>^ hardduty — a very thanklessduty and sometimes a very risky duty. I understandit very well, but it hasto be done. If the newspaper is to go on for thebenefit of the people andthe interest of the Government, you cannot allow anyother considerationto interfere with your duty. We have not startedthese papers to earnmoney only. We have started them to discuss currenttopics and pubHcquestions and for creating public opinion in thecountry. Whether whatAye say be palatable or unpalatable to the people,or palatable or unpalatable

103

to the Government, we have to make up our judgmenton the spur of themoment. If the incident takes place to-day and mypaper is published to-morrow I am bound to give my view upon it to-morrow.Perhaps it maynot be correct. Man is Uable to err, especially theman who writes on the

File1-Tilak Trialspur of the moment. There are party papers that takea different view ofthe same matter and people learn to find out whichview of the case is right.It is said that this can only be done by publicdiscussion and agitation ;•well, that is exactly what the newspaper writer hasto do, I suppose. Thesearticles were written in the performance of thatduty and not for the purposeof exciting disaffecticn against Government. That ismy point; and if Iwrite in discharge of my public duty you cannot saythat the Articles con-tain here and there expressions which in peculiarcircumstances might beconsidered as likely to give rise to disaffection.Stating the case and writ-ing one's views on a political question of the dayis very different from sedi-tion ; a critic may find fault with you ; but toquestion the writer's motiveis extremely ungenerous. I am not infallible; man isliable to err; but todrag me out for sedition and for punishment formalicious attempt is,gentlemen, to say the least, ungenerous —exceedingly cruel; you might ormight not have experience of my position and it isfor this purpose that Ihave to create around my articles, by readingcertain extracts from otherpapers, the atmosphere in which I worked at the timeI wrote those articles.It is quite necessary for you to realise my positionat the time and see foryourself what was the atmosphere created around meand what yoiL would

File1-Tilak Trialhave done under the circmstances. That is the properway of judging themotives of a man, and the intention of a man; andthe sevelal papersthat I have put in are papers which were lyingbefore me at the time whenthose articles were written and each of themcontains arguments to whichI had to reply at that time. In a homogeneouscountry like England,there are parties like Conservatives, Liberals,Radicals and Nationalists ;€ach man takes his own view of public events. Take,for instance, theBoer war; there were people who disapproved of it,though they were a verysmall minority. The majority of the nationdetermined upon going to warand the war did take place. Those who representedthe view of the minorityused arguments in favour of the Boers, they werecalled the pro-Boer party;the others used arguments against the Boers. Sothere was public opiniondiscussed on both sides and from both points ofview. That is the beautyof a free press, which allows discussion in this wayto the people of thecountry upon a particular subject. Now to come tothe point, if the deplo-rable incident at Muzzafarpore had happened inEngland the peoplewould have been able to discuss their views freely.There was no differenceof opinion here as to the character of thatdeplorable event but the questionfor Government to decide was how to prevent areccurrence. What was

File1-Tilak Trialthe cause of it ? This was a question which wasperfectly legitimate as asubject for discussion. Something veryextra-ordinary takes place; somethingthat appeals to you as quite out of the way andpublic discussion is sure totake place . You must realise what my position wasand I am going to provethat position by reading to you extracts fromAnglo-Indian newspapers ofthe time at which I was writing. Of course hisLordship has ruled that if,we put in certain papers we shall lose the right ofreply. I do not care for

104

the riglit of reply, I care for truth. The wholehistorj- of this matter must bebefore us. That is why I explained the law ofintention to you yesterday atsuch length. Suppose I say something in a clubbefore the members in a dis-cussion at the club in v/hich members were takingpart. I make some obser-vations. If yon consider my obser\-ations withouttaking into consideration. what was said by the other members also }-ou aresure to carry away some) wrong impression. The whole discussion must betaken into consideration,'Thus to form your opinion about this Article, youmust read the wholearticle. This is admitted by the prosecution so far,but when we try to putin the papers the}- object. Am I not entitled to put

File1-Tilak Trialin a single contribution,to the contro^•ersy ? I have read the views of otherpeople, and have takenpart in the controversy on a ceilain incident ; Ihave had to modify my viewsand where I disagreed with them I have had to sayso. It is for that reason thatthe freedom of the press is protected. Whencommunities takepart in a discussion, Anglo-Indians, Mahomedans, Hindus, andParsees each discuss thematter in their own way. in England, in everycivilized countr}^, there areparties. In India which is divided into communitiespublic opinion is notrepresented by parties formed on principles, butparties formed more or lessb>- different communities. Now take the Bombincident. What wasthe cause of it ? English papers rang on one notethat the true cause ofit was the agitation carried on by journalists ofdifferent shades of opinion.The ^^ Pioneer'^ wrote about the "Cult of the Bomb"I wrote about the"Secret of the Bomb." Whether my view is correct orthe Pioneer^ &view is correct is not the point. Perhaps yon wiUaccept my view. OtherswiU accept the Pionccr^s view. When this washappening it was myduty to write about it. I move in a commimity whichhas a particular view,'and being one of them find that by consulting them Ican see what mycommunity itself thinks of it. I do not say I takevotes to decide the matterbut I am living amongst the members of the community

File1-Tilak Trialwhich I represent andI am in constant touch Avith them and know the viewthey take. Necessarilytherefore I have to express the view of my communityupon this importantquestion of the day. If I do not express my view inmy own joiirnal I do notknow why I should continue to be the Editor andProprietor of a Newspaper.'I shall have to gi\-e up my post and make room forothers . That being thecase, while there are different views formed as tothe cause of this regrettableincident, I have called it "A misfoilune of theCountry." It is the headingof my article. It is not that I am now asked for anopinion about theregrettable incident but I have said it is the veryhinge of my article on thisgreat misfortune. Well, and there are also otherexpressions which I willhave to point out to you. Now this misfortune havingoccurred w-e werefaced with two different kinds of views . One viewwas that it was due topolitical agitation, from the Congress downwards orupwards. Theargument was something like this. The leaders of theCongress expressedtheir own opinion merely, and the Congress was not alegislative assembl}-»On the other side it is stated more strongly thatthe nationaUst party is toblame. An attempt was made to show that the Bombswere the latestoutcome of the agitation of these people; and theysaid, "Well, if that is thecause put a stop to the Congress and everything of

File1-Tilak Trialthe kind. This shouldno longer be tolerated". That was the view putforward by the Pioneer ^

105

Engltsnman, the Times of India ^ and even by theI^ondon Times.I need not name the other papers. That was one viewof the case.That was the chain of the reasoning ; and what wasthe Go\'erninent todo? Why to put a stop to everying with a high-hand.Now I ask you,Gentlemen of the Jurj-, if you were therepresentati\'es of your com-munity as I am of mine, ^what would you have done ?Evidently youwould have done what I did. The learned AdvocateGeneral said that if youput any thing frankly, that is no offence. It wasno_ offence to show

1' that the following was the view of my commimity.My view was the viewof the Marathi-speaking people and of the Hindoosevery where. Youcharge me with exciting public feeling. If I showyou that I did not excitethe people but only expressed public opinion andsimply stated the public^Jeeling and put that down in writing for thepurpose of replying to thearguments on the other side and for the informationof the Governmenthow can you hold me to be guilty of sedition ? It is

File1-Tilak Trialbut my ^^'^Secondly I am expressing piablic opinion and puttingforward new Measwhich may not be approved of by ever>' commimity orwhich are peculiarto this province. That is my defence and you have tojudge of my defencefrom that point of view. Our view evidently is thatthe Pioneer wasreferring only to a certain number of the links ofthe chain. What isthe Congress agitation really for ? For the reformof the bureaucracy ! Ifollow the Hue of argument of the Pioneer. I say youonly discuss somerungs of the ladder. I say that there is a hiddenrung which I bring to thepublic view. There is an old story; something Hkethis. Ten men were sittinground a table; each one was asked "how many are youhere"? Each manreplied 'nine,' forgetting to count himself. Thiscase is something Hke that.'The bureaucracy forgets to count itself with therest, putting it verybenevolently here. That is the view on one side.What is the view on theother ? It is this ; we do accept your chain ofreasoning and go a Httle furtheron, we find that the constitution of the Congress isdue to certain defects inthe bureaucracy. If you want to stop bombs now itwill not do to putdown the Congress agitation ; but you ought to putdown the bureaucracyfirst or reform it. I know that some of you may notlike this. That doesnot matter. I have not come here with the object of

File1-Tilak Trialforcing my view uponyou. The solution of the question ultimately restswith GovernmentsGovernment may take one view or other or favour oneview or favourthe other. The Judge has to decide in a differentmanner altogether.I know that when bureaucracy is not taken to taskthey like it; and when |we take them to task they do not like it. But we areperfectly justified inputting forward our view; and when we do it we arecharged with thecrime of setting one community against another. Wefind certain, liberty ienjoyed by Anglo-Indians in India, whether officialsor not; we are entitledto enjoy the same amount of liberty. Administrationwould be impossiblebut for this freedom of expression. We have everyright to place ourviews belore the Government and also the views ofour community.Every Indian journalist tries to put forward hisview before the Govern-ment both as regards the cause and the preventivemeasures to be adopted.I have given my view regarding the causes and willgo on now to thepreventive measures. The controversy is still goingon and it is not yet

106

ended. So these articles written from week to weekhave been written

File1-Tilak Trialupon materials, as those materials were accummulatedevery week. For thefirst week we have a certain number of papers beforeus. A fortnight afterwe get English opinion; we answer it from our ownpoint of view and it be-comes another contribution to the controversy. For aweek or two we discussthe Indian opinion, after that we discuss theEnglish opinion; then a weekafter new newspapers come to hand with new materialsfor dia[cussion, wehave to express our opinion upon it; as a matter offact every week some-thing happans ; somebody expresses his opinioneither in the form ofa letter addressed to the newspaper or in aneditorial. All this occurs andit becomes a journalist's duty to represent theviews of the communityand to write whether he agrees with them or not. Itis not a matter ofchoice, but of duty, and if a matter of duty, I askyou, gentlemen, whatcould you have done under the circumstances ? Wouldyou not have takenthe current topic or would you have been contentwith thinking that as thetimes were disturbed, you should write on areligious subject or take up anantiquarian subject and write of the latestresearches ? I could not havedone it. It is for the discussion of currentsubjects that newspapers arestarted and so long as I am independent and reply tothe views of others Iam perfectly justified in taking my views, from thestandpoint which

File1-Tilak Trialappears to me to be most efficatious. There is noquestion about it; andthis is the point of view from which these articleshave to be considered;iand not only with the help of the maxim that everyman intends thenatural consequences of his acts. The Prosecutionought to haveput all these matters before you and not left it forthe defence to do that.All the facts, in fairness, ought to have beenplaced before you by theProsecution; instead of that they have taken thearticle and charged meunder 124 A; without looking whether it is coveredby the first or secondpart of the section, they placed it before theMagistrate, and beforeyou. They have read it to you, saying " here youare; if there are anyexculpating circumstances allow the defence to pointthem out." CertainlyI am not called here on the presumption that I amguilty. I want theProsecution first to point out how I have erred,taking into considerationall the circumstances. The whole process is unfairas the burden hasbeen erroneously placed upon the defence. Thatcannot be done; otherwise itbecomes a simple matter. You have only to give anarticle bo the Translator'sDeparttnent. Get it translated; pin on section 124 Ato a few sentences and ina few minutes the whole thing is done and theverdict obtained. Not onlythat but I want to put in the papers containing thecontroversy and objection

File1-Tilak Trialis taken by the Prosecution. No witnesses have beencalled in this case, sowe cannot cross-examine them. If they had beencalled to show intentionwe should have cross-examined them. It is allowed bylaw and thereforewould have been allowed by his Lordship. I say theprocess followedhere is not fair. Then about the translations youwill see that there areCertain distortions. There is a maxim in English "give a dog a bad nameand then hang him." I don't say anything aboutdeliberate intention.The process looks something like this. '"Get thearticles translated; youdon't understand Marathi; don't worry; put in a fewinuendoes from thedistorted translations and the whole thing isdone.'^ I notice a very peculiar

107

case, there is a sentence there (I did not put it)as to calling a rope a snake.'It is a very common proverb in Marathi forexpressing the idea of mis-taking an innocent thing for an offensive one; formistaking an innocentman for a thief and punishing him as such. It is thesame as giving adog a bad name and then haging him. But having beentranslated in thefashion in which it is translated here, the learnedCounsel for the Crownhestened to draw the inference here that the writer

File1-Tilak Trialby the word ' snake ',refers to the Government. I read the translation toyou. * 'It is no usestriking idly and continually a piece of rope aftercalling it a snake. "This is an entirely distorted translation. I willread to you the originalMarathi ( Reads E) Now a translation like that is notranslation at all.The Oriental Translator said that the Printer'sDevil came to his help. Asmall ' k ' was turned into a capital ' K ' .Probably the printers are verymuch afraid of sedition. They must have thought thatif they set capital/ K ' they would be quite safe. One refers to ' theKing ' and the other to,' kings ' in general. The other instance is xi^^"^-The Translatorthought that ' killing ' was a poor insignificantword, he wanted somethinggrand. ' Assasssiuation ' is a grand word. He wouldappear, he thought,to have a greater command of the English language ifhe used such agrand word as ' assassination. '

Your lyordship asked me if I was going to questionthe translations.I said, Yes. In my own interest and in the interestof the cause I representI was bound to question the translations which werecompletely distorted.'Gentlemen, that is the material on which you have tojudge whether thearticles are seditious or not. That kind oftranslation will make anythingseditious. I submit that it is simply intolerable

File1-Tilak Trialthat conviction for seditionshould be based upon such translations. The errorsmay have been innocent-ly made, but this is not the place where sucherrrors should be allowed.Many of you here may have visited the laughinggallery that was exhibitedin the Exhibition held in Bombay a few years ago.There were displayedin it two mirrors, one containing concave andanother convex glasses.On looking into those glasses, on the right andleft, one found one's facedistorted in various ways, sometimes like the faceof a monkey and some-times like that of some other hideous being; but itwas the self-same faceafter all. So long as that laughing gallery was inthe Exhibition onereally enjoyed the fun of it; but when that laughinggallery, so to say,was placed in the Translator's department, it was avery serious thingindeed. I am bound to protest against it. That isnot the place really wherethe laughing gallery should be placed; it is thelast place in the worldwhere it should find a location. I think that afterthe discovery of suchdistortions the proper course is either to get newtranslations made or toacquit me altogether. Really speaking my articlesare not the subject of thecharge. It is thes£ translations thatare thesubjectof the charge. My articlesare in Marathi. You distort them. I do not mean you,gentlemen of theJury, but some one who is responsible for

File1-Tilak Trialtranslation; and on the strengthof such distorted translations two serious chargeshave been broughtagainst me. If I succeed in showing that the wordingof these translationsis not correct, that in itself is enough to insuremy acquittal. Nothingmore is necessary. The words on which theProsecution is

lOS

likely to rely are found to be distorted images oftheoriginal words. If that fact is once proved, even inthe case often words, how can you as reasonable men rely uponsuch translations ?It is not my duty to cross-examine the translatorand to see that everyword was properly translated. If I were to do so itwould take four or fiveda5fs to examine the witness. I have pointed outthat the principal wordson which the Prosecution relies have not beencorrectly translated. Forinstance, in line 10th page first of the firstarticle, in the phrase " perv-er-sity of the white official class "the word "perversity " is mistranslated,and the word " white " is wrongly used. We may sayinstead " stubb-ornness of the English bureaucracy." If we acceptthe phrase used inthe translation it takes away the whole sense of it.Furthur on, in line

File1-Tilak Trial28, we have the phrase " the oppressive ofiicialclass ". Really it ought tobe " the despotic bureaucracy." This is a perfectlylegitimate expression,which, I say, has been used by every Indian writeron every politicalsubject. " Despotic bureaucracy "or " arbitrarybureaucracy" are thephrases used for it both in Indian and Englishpaper? and they are neverconsidered offensive. And because I had to representin a few coinedwords in Marathi these constitutional ideas whichthe High Court trans-lator does not understand, I am brought here beforeyou to be tried on acharge of sedition. Then later on, there is thephrase *' tyrannical andoppressive official class." I ask what the words arefor '* tyrannical ",and " oppressive " in the origianal. There are nosuch words in theoriginal. The phrase ought to have been rendered by"despotic and arbi-trary official class " Now, when there are so manyinaccuracies, wouldyou say that it is my duty to find out every mistake? Certainly not.I am not called here to correct the translations ofthe High Court transla-tor gratis. ( L,anghter ).

The Judge: — • If decorum is not preserved in thisCourt I will havethe Court cleared.

The Accused: — I claim, therefore, that the chargeis not maintainable.

File1-Tilak TrialI never knew that the articles coud be so horridlydistorted. Marathilangage is growing, and an attempt is here made totranslate the Marathilanguage of 1908 with the aid of a dictionarypublished full fifty years ago.I knew that the High Court translator would takeshelter in a dictionary;but old fortifications cannot stand before new guns.In this way notonly these, but as I have explained in my statement,seveial words havebeen wrongly rendered. I do not attribute any motiveto the translator.I have to say this in my self-defence, as the swordof Damocles is hangingover my head. I wish these translations had beensubstituted by new ones.And why was that course not takeu ? I asked theAdvocate Generalwhether he wished to put in a new witness to testifyto the correctness ofthe translation ? He said. No. Then, am I to betried on these distorted,translations ? Why not acquit me ? There is the ruleof law that if acharge is shown to be faulty in any essentialparticular the defendant canclaim an acquittal or a retrial. Why is that notdone when the trans-lations are shown to be faulty in material portions?

109

Now, look at some words iu the second article, Ex.

File1-Tilak TrialD. To beginwith, there is a sample. (Reads. " The fiend ofoppression has takenpossession of the body of the Government of India "&c. ) The insinu-ation is that we call the Government of India afiend or Demon. Thereis a common expression " evil genius has takenpossession of you, " andit applies here. I am thankful to the translator fornot translating " demonof oppression." Then, again, the phrase ''aberration of intellect." As Ihave shown in my cioss' examination, it originallymeans nothing morethan" error of judgement." Look at the differencebetween the two.This " error of judgement" is a common andinoffensive expression.," Aberration of intellect " ascribes lunay toGovernmnet. The insinuationis that I call Government a fiend, I call Governmenttyrannical, that I challGovernment oppressive; and it is on thesemistranslations, gentlemen, thatthe Prosecution wishes to base this case. How for amoment it can standI do not understand. I do not understand how anyprosecution can besupported on these mis-translations. I do not know;the learned Advo-cate General may have some reply to give. Possiblyhe still thinks thatthe translations are correct. But if that be theview of the Prosecution Ithink more witnesses ought to have been called. Thefact of correctness orotherwise of the translations can only be

File1-Tilak Trialestablished by a witness. Hadthere been a Marathi-knowing Jury they could havejudged of the articlesfor themselves. But here the only way in which thetrue meaning of thepassages objected to can be brought to your noticeis by producing a witnesswho will testify to the accuracy of thosetranslations. Then and thenalone, you can base your innuendoes or inferencesupon them. It is avery serious inconvenience not only to me but alsoto you and I say thaton translations like those it is impossible tocondemn a man. Even ifnothing more is proved by me than the words horriblydistorted, I am en-titled to an acquittal.

So the material placed before you by the Prosecutionis nothing morethan these translations. I am going to read all ofthem to you and ex-plain the purport, the reasoning, the innuendoesthat could be fairlydrawn from them. As I have already said, I requestedthe Prosecution tomark out passages. No, they said, here is a bundle,you may take yourchance. Why ? Because the Prosecution has the rightand is allowedby the law to do so. I do not question the legalityof the procedure. Butit is very hard. I have now to explain to you,though somebody willaccuse me of waste of time, every sentence and be onmy guard thatnone of them is perverted for making it the basis of

File1-Tilak Trialan innuendo.

As regards surrounding circumstances the Prosecutionis absolutelysilent excepting that one card. If any gentleman ofthe Jury can readMarathi and can get himself satisfied I can givethem copies of theoriginal articles.

The Foreman :-^We should like to see Ex. C- (Articleof the12th May).

The Judge : — Let all the original exhibits be shownto the JuryV

no

The Accused : — We have reprinted them iu the formof a pamphletand if your Lordship will permit me I will supplythe jurors witbthe copies.

The Judge ; — By all means do so.

This being done the Accused pointed out the linesand pages-where the passages referred to by him occurred.

The Accused : — The first expression occurs in line4. "EnglishLadies" Iu the translation the words are *'two whiteladies." Theinsinuation is that by referring to colour we mean a

File1-Tilak Trialcertain sense ofdisrespect. Again the word "gora" does not mean'white.' It refers to com-plexion. Ordinarily it is so used in Marathi, It isnot a term of reproach.'Inline 6 the word "titkara" has been rendered by"hatred." while itsimply means "disgust." Then the words "goraAdhikari varga"•'bureaucracy" appear in English. In order that theword might notbe misunderstood I have put the word bureaucracy,and yet thetranslator misunderstands it. Then the two wordsthat follow "bureau-cracy'' are "hatta" and "duragraha" and they arewrongly rendered.''Then about five lines below is the word 'Nemanem' —That has been alsO'wrongly rendered. Three lines still below occur thewords " BadmashMathephiru." I have called those that did theoutrageoiis deed as"fanatics and felons" in the articles. I have calledthem "Atatai"felons and "Mathephiru" fanatics. But in thetranslation "Atatai",has been rendered as a "violent man" and what I call"fanatic" isaccording to the translator simply a 'madcap.' Wherethere is thequestion of blaming those that committed violencethe words used inthe translation are less strong than those in theoriginal. But where itis a question of blaming ihe bureaucracy the Englishwords used in thetranslation are stronger than those in the original.

File1-Tilak Trial"Zoolmi adhikarivarga"which means a "despotic bureaucray" has beenrendered by "oppres-sive or tyrannical bureaucracy " That entirelychanges the meaning.Then comes the expression "Gora adhikarivarga." Theexpression isthroughout rendered by " the white official class."I maintain that"white is a wrong translation altogether. Of course,"white" can beunderstood in a good sense. As for intance theyspeak of "the whiteman's burden." But it is likely that an innuendo maybe based upon it tothe effect that we call them "white" contemptuously.In a translation-like this it is necessary not only to represent theoriginal but also to seethat no unnecessary element is introduced from whichan adverse infer-ence or innuendo may be drawn. In order to save timeI will mark' outlines of passages to which I wish yon to refer and Ishall give them toyou tonrorrow; you have two days' leisure and youcan for yourself ascer-tain whether the translations are correct or not.

The Judge: ( To the accused ) . Of course, whateveryou may tellthe Jury and whatever those among them who can readMarathi telltheii colleagues is permissible. But I do not thinkit would be rightfor any gentleman of the Jury to have these articlesread or translated

File1-Tilak Trial

Ill

by anybody else.' You are at liberty to explain themto the Jury inwhatever manner yon like. You can tell them thatthis is the meanino-given by the translator, that this is the Marathiword for it, andthat that is your meaning, and those jurors who knowMarathi willI have no doubt, tell their colleagues whether yourcontentions areright or wrong. But they must not resort to anyoutside help. To theJury) Gentlemen of the Jury, the Accused is entitledto point out to youwhat according to him are the correct translations,but you are not entitledto get those originals read to you by anybody else.You have before youthe High Court official translations, which must beyour guide; but theaccused is entitled to point to you what heconsiders mistranslations inthose translations, and those gentlemen of the Jurywho can followMarathi will be able to tell their colleagues, whodo not know Marathi,whethei the accused's contentions are correct ornot. It is for you tojudge, but you must not resort to outside help.

The Accused; — I must accept the ruling of hislyordship^

Continuing the Accused said: What observations I

File1-Tilak Trialhave to make onthe translations I will reserve them for thepresent. I will now go overother points which are essential in this case. Thereis one point, however,which may occur to you, and it is, 'How can thesetranslations be wrong' ?I certainly do not attribute any motive to anybody.What has happenedis this. We have to write upon current politicaltopics; on politicalscience, on political events, on historical events,and so on. The oldMarathi language was not certainly capacious for thepurpose. Wehave words, for instance, for " monarchy," but nonefor " democracy."The very idea of constitutional monarchy is to beexpresssd in a round-about way. We cannot find words for it either inMolesworth's or in Can-dy's Dictionary. As to the words " Killing, murder,and assassination \\there is a word for ' murder ' and for 'killing' butnot one word for assas-sination. That is the particularity of the language.The western ideasare new ideas and every writer in Marathi has a verypeculiar duty toperform. He has not only to express his ideas inpopular language but tocoin words. Many such words are coming into usenowadays. You areprobably not aware of the difficulty. The English isa highly cultivatedlanguage; every sentiment and shade of meaning canbe veryaccurately expressed in it. But such is not the case

File1-Tilak Trialwith Marathi. So alsoon economic questions-protection, free trade,balance of trade are wordsand expsessions which it is very difficult to renderin Marathi.you lead in English papers — subjects of highpolitics, com^^-mics, is discussed in Maralhi papers nowadays, and^^difficult to reader them in Marathi. The ideasbecause we have received them through Enpwrite in Marathi. This has been goingBefore the character of the language i?ideas but also English constructionsMarathi is a combination of EnglisEnglish ideas expressed by new ipossible to find these words in any dictiona

112

been intentionally wrcngly done.' But the man, whodid them could nothave been acquainted with the literature of thepresent day. In order toproperly render these Articles into English, the manmust be up-to-date.The is the reason why these translations are notcorrect.

Then there is another point which the Jury will haveto judge, and itis whether the innuendoes are correct or not. I donot know for the presentwhat innuendoes the Prosecution are going to drawbut I am anticipatingthem from some remarks which fell from the mouth of

File1-Tilak Trialthe learned Counselfor the Prosecution. There may be others but tothose I have no opportunityof replying. Another point which I wish to bring toyour notice is the diffi-culty of ascertaining the feelings of the Marathicommunity. I have saidthat in order to judge of the effect of an articleon a particular communityyou have not to judge what the effect of thatarticle will be on the Englishcommunity or the Mahomedan community or on theBengalicommunity. They are all excluded. The articles wereread byMarathi-knowing people, and the question is what thepresent state ofMarathi-knowing people is. That is an importantpoint, As I saidyesterday you have to consider those points, thelanguage of the article,the state of the society, and not merely the stateof the society, but alsothe state of the society at a particular time. Thatis what you have tojudge. It is, as I then said, an equation"containing three unknownquantities, and unless and until these three thingsare ascertained, it isimpossible to judge of the probable effect of thosewords upon the minds ofthe Marathi-speaking people. Do not thjnk thatwhatever impressionthose words in the translations have produced uponyou, is also thethe impression which is likely to be produced on theMarathi-speakingpeople. As I have alredy said the impression is

File1-Tilak Trialdifferent on differentcommunities. For instance, as I have stated, anarticle on cow-killingwould produce different impressions upon the twocommunities, namely,the Hindas and the Mahomedans. You have nothing todo as to whatimpression would be created' in Bengal, N. W. P., orthe MadrasPresidency. My paper is not read in those parts ofthe country. I am notcharged with exciting feelings of disaffectionthroughout India. But the^'s as to the effect that is likely to be producedon the minds of the'^e Kesari. The proper course then was to put somereaders'" the witness box and ask them what effect those'hem. That would have been the proper'nt. If these articles are likely to producethey are seditious, otherwise not.

ed till Friday. ,

113FIFTH DAY.

Friday 17 th July 1908.

Mr. Tilak resuming his address said: —

My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury, yesterday eveningwhen the Courtrose I had only placed before you some of the pointson which I wish to relyin my defence. I tried to show first that it was a

File1-Tilak Trialcontroversy in which as anewspaper editor I was bound to take part ; secondlyin doing so I representedthe opinion of my community, and did not invent anynew argument andthirdly that my arguments were in reply to thearguments advanced by theother side, and this was urged especially to showthat when you have tojudo-eof the arguments advanced by me you have to takeinto consideration thearguments to which they are replies. It isimpossible to judge intelligentlythe effect of the arguments on the one side unlessthe arguments to whichthey are replies are also before you. Then I triedto show that you have tojudge of the effects of the articles written inMarathi on a Marathi-speakingcommmunity. The paper is not read all over India,but onlyby Marathi-know-ing pubHc. And I also adverted to the fact that thetranslations not beino-correct you were placed somewhat in an awkwardposition in judgino- of theeffect of the words upon the minds of theMarathi-speaking people, as well indrawing your inference as in basing your inuendoeson the same. All thesefacts have to be considered as the surroundingincidents from which you haveto draw your inference as to intention and motive. Imention this in con-tra-distinction to the legal fiction that a man mustbe presumed to intend thenatural consequences of his acts. Thesecircumstances will have to be takeninto consideration in arriving at a proper

File1-Tilak Trialconclusion as to my motive, consi-dering the cause I had to represent at the time.Lawyers say, infer the con-duct of a particular man from a particular actcommitted by him. Thesurrounding circumstances also are perfectlyrelevant. There are two orthree points which are to be noticed. I wish to doit now, and then readsome of the extracts from the papers to enable youto judge of the atmospheresurrounding me at the time the articles werewritten. As I have said I wasmaking a suggestion to Government not merely givinga reply. Certain advicewas tendered by the Anglo-Indian papers toGovernment which I thouo-htwas against the interest of my community. It was asa newspaper editor myduty to place my view before the Government in adifferent light from thatin which the Anglo-Indian papers thought it fit todo. Gentlemen, here Imust say one thing. Although I speak of theAnglo-Indian community, itis not a matter between Anglo-Indians and Indians asI observed yesterday.Political parties take the form of rival interestsbetween communities inIndia. But that is not always the case; and in mycontroversy I should rathersay instead of Anglo-Indian community and Nativecommunity we shouldsay the pro-bureaucracy party and theanti-bureaucracy party; or if youdo not want to use the word ' ' anti -bureaucracy ," let us say thepro-Congress party. These were the two parties, if

File1-Tilak Trialproperly defined.The object being to place both sides beforeGovernment I use the wordspro -bureaucrat and 'pro-Congress' deliberately inorder to show that theirinterests are not racial interests. It is a mistaketo suppose that thecontroversy arose out of any racial differences.There was a real opposition

114

ot interests, such opposition as we find in Englandbetween the Conservativesand Liberals. Of course an attempt will be made andhas been made in thenewspapers to represent this conflict of interest asracial, and as due to raceanimosity . Our view of the matter is that it is notracial ; for you will findwhen I read some of the extracts from the newspapersthat there are Indiano-entlemen who have sided with the Anlo-Indianpapers, and also that someAnglo-Indians side with the native papers. One ofthe articles put in bythe Prosecution is put in to prove intention. It isdated 19th May and isheaded 'A Double Hint.' (Ex. E.) That means a "hint"to the natives assubjects as well as to the Government. Thatdiscloses the object of an articlewhich has been put in by the Prosecution to proveintention. "DoubleHint' ' is a sugsestion made to Government and madeto most of the native

File1-Tilak Trialleaders who are siding with, or who are in favour ofthe views expressed by,Ano-lo-Indian papers. There is a double warningconveyed to both sides;and the warning conveyed to the people being not togo against their owninterests in the hurry of the moment and not toforget what the real interestsof the native community are. Because an outrage hastaken place, let us notbe confused but take a calm view of the situation.That is the purpose forwhich that article was penned ; it was to convey ahint and warning to bothsides and to Government. Another point to beconsidered is that proposalswere then actually before Government, notice hadbeen given that Govern-ment were going to pass a Press Act and anExplosives Act. (What they pass-ed is not exactly a Press A.ct.) These two measureswere known to be beforethe Government and my comments on these measures andthe view of thecommunity on these measures had to be communicatedto Government andthat has been done in the other two articles .Repressive measures werecontemplated; and we had to give our views, just asit is perfectly legal for aman to give details of a bill, (in this case therewas no publication as thetime was too short) and to give his views on themeither privately or public-ly according to his position. So I had as anewspaper man to comment onthe measures contemplated, and that is done with thepurpose, with the

File1-Tilak Trialobject, of communicating my honest views toGovernment. Though Govern-ment may not agree with my views altogether I amperfectly within my rightin communicating my views to Government. When I havenotice of a certainmeasure being contemplated it is my duty to place myviews before Govern-ment. So the situation is this. As against the legalmaxim that a man intendsthe natural consequences of his acts. You have totake into considerationall these circumstances. I have summarised themshortly. (1) It is a reply toAnglo-Indian criticism. (2) It is a suggestion toGovernment and addressedto Government. (3) The articles are also addressedto the people. (4) It is adiscussion of the situation. (5) It contains awarning to both partieswhich it is my duty as a journalist to convey and(6) It contains a criticismof the contemplated measures of Government. That ismy defence, and it ison these grounds that I ask you not to rely solelyupon the legal fictionbut to take into consideration the othercircumstances. If you find, as Ihave said, that perhaps writing on the spur of themoment, it was not possi-ble for me to weigh my words in a balance, and ifyou find my motive hasbeen good, I expect acquittal from you. Gentlemen,It is impossible in writ-ing on the spur of the moment to make a choice ofwords. I asked Mr.

File1-Tilak Trial

115

Joshi to give me a word for 'error of judgment,' Hesaid he would give me onethe next day. I must give the word at once andexpress my opinions. Weekby week, we have to see what material gathers duringthe week and we haveto give a summary of the public opinion ; we haveboth to reply and to giveour views on the same. That is what has to be doneat short notice in anewspaper office. The pressure is greater in thecase of a daily; it is notso great in the case of a weekly. But after all itis pressure under which wehave to work. Now we work under that pressure, withthe object of pre-senting our side before the people and theGovernment and replying to criti-cism in the press owned and controlled by the otherparty. That is reallythe situation. *Place yourself in that situation andwhen you have done so say,if you had been an editor of a journal in thesetimes, what you would havedone ? Possibly you are not aware of the volume ofmatter that comes beforeus. In my own office I get as many as two hundrednewspapers a week. Wehave to sift, and summarise, and settle on lines ofreply. In order togive you some idea of the pressure under which Ihave to work, Ihave put in those documents. I do not want to readthem allto you. I do not wish to take up your time. In fact

File1-Tilak TrialI can myselfill-bear the strain in the present state of myhealth. AU I want to do is togive you some idea of the pressure under which wehave to work and of thesurrounding circumstances which influence ourjudgment for the week.That is done in every newspaper office. Now you willkindly give yourattention to one of the comments which is to theeffect that the argumentsof the Anglo-Indian papers are "silly". Here are twonotes, one relates tocause and the other to preventive measures. Thereare the two main points.Now on these two points the controversy was raised.One party diagnosedit in one way and the other in another way, and oneparty treated it in oneway and another party in another way. You cannotform a judgment fromone article taken singly isolated from thecontroversy. As I told you yester-day, the diagnosis of one party was politicalagitation. There is a party inthis country which feels that the Administration isnot all right. I am notasking you to agree with me. This is not a PohticalClub where we intendto argue with each other. This is a Court of Lawwhere we have to seewhether we have a right to put forth our views ornot. It is impossible tomake conversions here and I am not going to attemptit. I only say thatevery party has the right of expressing opinions inits own way and the sameright must be conceded to the other party. Now that

File1-Tilak Trialis the purpose forwhich these papers have been put in. If the otherside had said that thearguments of this side are dangerous or preposterousI would have been per-fectly justified in saying that they are talkingnonsense. It is in that way youhave to judge of the import of the words used by mein this controversy. Itis a reply. It is as it were a tug of war and thetension on the rope canonly be asertained by ascertaining the force on eachside. It cannot bedone otherwise. That is the reason why I want toread a few extracts toyou to show what effect these words and argumentsare likely to produce andhad produced on the other side. It was the duty ofthe Prosecution to do that.The Prosecution is perfectly at liberty to take adifferent view. They haveonly placed before you one end of the rope in thistug of war. It is a rule inmathematics that no tension can be created bypulling a string atone end only.

116

When you want to find a tension yon have to see whatthe forces are at bothends. And it is with that view, as I have said, thatI have pnt in these papers oI wish to read some of the extracts from them toyou. I am sorry it will takeup your time but I cannot help that. It is not aquestion of who is right and

File1-Tilak Trialwho is wrong. If both parties are entitled to putforth their views, I request youto show the same consideration from the point ofview of law and justice toboth parties. If it were a controversy taking placein England between twoparties one party would say that the other party hadno right to be in power.Now the Liberals are in power, and the Conservativessay that they ought notto be in power. There is a controversy raised aboutthe existence of theHouse of Lords itself. Do you mean to say that thecontroversy raised aboutthe House of Lords is seditious? Then the late PrimeMinister would have tobe sent to jail for his speech against the House ofLords. He was not question-ed at all as he was entitled to express his opinions. As I have said Governmentin the concrete should be distinguished fromGovernment in the abstract. Iam not here to advocate that my view is right. Somepeople think that thepresent state of things is all right, others thinkthat it should be reformed.But in any case each party should have the libertyto place its view beforeGovernment. What is the advantage of a free Press?It has its disadvantages,but on the whole, advantages outweigh thedisadvantages. India is fortunatelyruled by a civilised nation . The liberty of a freePress is allowed to us . I knowwe have not had to fight for it, as the Englishpeople had to do in 1792; butafter aU it is a concession granted to us and solong as it is not withdrawn we

File1-Tilak Trialare entitled to have the same liberty that isenjoyed in England.Now with these remarks I propose to read to you thefirstcharge-article. It is the article which appeared inthe Kesari dated12th May. It deals with the events of the 29th andthe 30th of April.Of course views on these events were published inthe issue of 5th May 1908.When our views in the article were written we wantedto see what shape thecontroversy would take. In the meanwhile as aneditor I had on my tablea number of notes. What I do with these notes inthis. I read them. Idigest them and I give a summary of the news in mypaper and at the sametime if I think there is anything harmful to theinterests of my communityI try to reply. Now the reply must not be judged inthe cool atmosphere ofthis room but taking into consideration the state towhich my mind wasbrought on reading these notes. You must feel as Ifelt then, and it canonly be done by placing before you the matters whichwere before me whenI wrote these articles. This is the relevancy of thevarious papers that havebeen put in. Very likely you may be taking one ortwo of these papers,but you may have no idea of what the controversy isand it is to give youthat idea that I put in these papers. You must bereading some of thesenewspapers but not all. What do the editors do ?They do the work for

File1-Tilak Trialyou. But here you are brought to give a judgment,and I read these papersto you in order that you should arrive at a sounddecision. Now thepapers I have put in may be classified under threeor four heads. You havethe comments made by the English papers such as thePioneer^ the Eng-IJsIwmn^thQ Statesjnan^the Empire^ the Times ofIndia, the Advocate ofIndia. Then you have the reply of the Indian Pressto the same inthe Bengali, the Hindu, the Madras Standard, thePatrika, the Punjabi y

117

etc. It is not only in the Marathi journals that thecontroversy is raised.It is raised all over India. The two views arerepresented by the exponentsof the different parties in the press over whichthey had control or which re-presented them. That is the point to which I shalldraw your attention. Soyou have first of all the opinion of the Englishpapers in India and then theopinion of the native press in India. Then cameafter a foilnight homepapers with the views on this incident ofEnglishmen. That becomesanother chapter in this controversy. When I read toyou the three or four arti'-cles which have been put in, you will find that theyhave not been written fornothing, but that there was an immediate cause which

File1-Tilak Trialprompted the writingof these articles. This is the way we write fromweek to week. It was oneof the arguments of the learned Counsel for theCrown that I had been goingon from week to week issuing seditious articles. Butthe controversy wenton from week to week. You have the English opinion,the Anglo-Indianopinion, and the Native Press opinion, and then wecome to the view heldin this Presidency and by the Marathi-speakingpopulation. I am chargedspecifically with causing excitement not throughoutIndia but among theMarathi-speaking population. I do not stand alone inmy views. I put aquestion to Mr. Joshi as to how many parties thereare among the Marathispeaking people as I wanted to show that the papersof all parties to whichthe writers belong and of all parties in theMarathi-speaking communitytook the same view as I did. That absolves me fromany evil intention. Ifthere is no personal prejudice against me, thesearticles will show that I wasnot prompted by any personal prejudices. They neednot be looked atthrough coloured glasses. It was a natural outcomeof the forces actingupon us at the time. In fact what I maintain isthat, as they say inmedicine, there are certain causes which areresponsive to a reflex action.My intention is to show that these articles werewritten in answer to ceilaincriticisms. The articles I have put in may be

File1-Tilak Trialclassed under these four heads.Then there are the proceedings of the LegislativeCouncil as printed in theGazette of India in connection with the passing ofthe Press Act. These pro-ceedings form the subject of the comments in myarticle. It is in that waythat these papers are relevant. Of course they are agreat mass, but I donot want to read the whole lot but a few extractsonly. But if you are notsatisfied you can take them and read them and formyour own judgmentfrom them. It is not my wish to raise thatcontroversy here.

Accused : — May I ask my Lord, if I may be allov/edthe use of certainpapers that have been put in. I have alreadyexplained their relevancy.

His Lordship to Clerk of the Crown: — Give accusedthe whole bundle.

Now the first paper I have put in is the Pioneer ofMay 7th 1908 .(page 2 Col. 1 ) The issue is only a week after thebomb incident and beforeI wrote my article of May 12th. What does thePioneer say ? The headingis "The Cult of the Bomb" and that heading deservesto be compared withthe heading of my article "The Secret of the Bomb"Now there is onesentence tliere. ^ Reads from "If" down to "foreveiy life sacrificed". VideDefence Ex. 1 ) That was the recommendation made ;an indiscriminate

File1-Tilak Trialslaughter of the innocents.

Mr. Branson : — My Lord, do you think I\Ir, Tilak isentitled to read.that passage and say it recommends the slaughter ofthe innocents ?

118

His Lordship : — Of course it is difficult to directthe use of language ;',we must leave him to exercise his discretion.

Accused : — Of course there is a quahfication.

Continuing Accused said :—

There is another extract also which I want to readto you. (Reads "only-class" to "striking for freedom". ) Look at that ;If that is stated it isour bouuden duty to state our side ; and that is howmy article arises.(Reads down to "British Government may be toleratedtemporarily.") Ofcourse that Is a somewhat per\'erted view of theaims of the Congress.(Reads down to "wicked".) And then the article goeson to say somethingabout Keir Hardies and and Nevinsons. ( Reads from "only force "down to "ignorant masses and to "bombs thrown inCalcutta. " j

So that ^this paper says that there is a logicalconnection between

File1-Tilak Trialmembers of Council and Bomb-throwers in Bengal. Whenthese seriouscomments are made in the Press is it not the boundenduty of the editorson the other side to place their side of thecontroversy before the people ?That is how the situation arises. Of course thearticle gives me morecredit than I deserve here (Reads " By theirbitterness " down to " it iswicked" ) We never denied that. (Reads "thenationalists may be"down to "by bomb.") Further on it says (Reads "It isimpossible tojudge" down to "not guilty") Indirectly chargingthat every one ofus knew that bombs were going to be thrown. (Readsdown to "astray".)Now these quotations are from this article, whichextends to two columns.'If any of the Gentlmen of the Jury wish to see thearticle your Lordshipwill direct that it should be handed over.

His Lordship : — If any one desires to see it I willallow it to be handedup to the Gentlemen of the Jury.

(The paper was handed up to the Clerk of the Crown).Accused continuing : —

You will find that these are the comments of thePioneer; I amspecifically named both as editor of the vernacularpaper of over thirty yearsstanding and also by name. Now here is an extractfrom the Aisan which

File1-Tilak Trialis coupled with an extract from the Empire. ( videExhibit D 2. )Then comes (Reads "Mr. Kingsford is" down to"range".) He isrecommended to shoot at short range; and then itgoes on (Reads "wehope Mr. Kingsford will secure a big bag" down to"best of luck".) Thenext paper I wish to read is the Gujrathi of May31st. page HZ Col. 2which quotes from the Englishmaii^ s correspondentwith the comment ofthe Editor upon it. (Reads "I submit that powers"down to "which theyendeavoured to direct ' ( \dde Exhibit D 3. ) Therewas also thesuggestion made that all these men should be whippedin publicstreets by public sweepers, I now put in the Pioneerof 11th may,page 2, Col. I to 3. ( vide Exhibit D 4. ) I havenot been able toto procure all the articles of the Pioneer ox Iwould have done so. The

119

Pioneer of 11th May 1908 speaking of the SeditiousPubUcations Act, whichwas adopted in the Legislative Council, names Dr.Rash Behari Ghose andthe Hon. Mr. Gokhale and goes on to say -.-(Readsdown to "liberty") Thenit goes on to speak of the agitation in Madras andBengal and other places andthen goes on in this manner (Reads "The exhortation

File1-Tilak Trial"down to ''in effect").This means that people should be prohibited from allpubhc meetingsHappily the Press Act was not passed then or thePoineer^ovX^ have said thatboth meetings and the Vernacular Press should besuppressed (Readsdown to "not prohibited".) In that way the articlecloses. Now Iwould Hke to read a few extracts from three or fourarticles from the CalcuttaStatesjuau. The feeUng is not so strong on theBombay side. It is particularlystrong in Bengal. The Statesman from which I amgoing to quote is datedMay 5 ^vide D 5. ) (Reads from "the people" down to"murderousoutrage".) Further on it says : — (Reads from "itwill be obser\'ed" down to" extremist agitators. " ) And then there is a longtirade against theExtremists. We now next come to the Statesinan ofMay 5th and7th (Reads " so long as " down to " terrorists willremain. ") These twoarticles appear in the Statesman and you can satisfyyourselves that the ex-tracts I am reading are correct. It is not aquestion of translations. Again\h.^ Statesman Q>iyi2.y 15, page 6, Col. 2 and 3.says (Reads " Even inRussia" down to "many countries.") Then we have "theTimes of India""of May 4, which says (Reads "The spirit" down to"motives may havebeen pure.") Of course that is one of thereser\'ations made. Thus I saythey contributed to the agitation. They attributed

File1-Tilak Trialit of course to the extrem-ists of the Congress. Again there is the Advocate ofIndia dated May 4 page6 Col. 2 and 3 (Reads " The one unnpalatable truth"down to " Hydra withthe paper knife.") It advises Government to haverecourse to the most re-pressive measures. Reads "It is no use" down to "nowto deplore. ") Nowthese were the writings which were pubUshed betweenthe date of my articleand the date of the incident or outrage. They wereall before_ the pubUc.We honestly beUeved that these writings weremischievous, particularly theinsinuations of those writers and they had to becounteracted. What werewe to do ? Not put comments in our papercontradicting this ? If we hadused equally strong terms should we have beenallowed to do so quietly ?That is the point to be considered. In a controversywe have to counter-act some other views. Of course this was done by thenative papers and Ihave put in two or three issues of the Bengali. Theeditor of this paper isSurendranath Banarji and his name is mentioned bythe Pioneer in the firstarticle I read. Of course, the reply is that allthese articles were written mthe heat and excitement of the moment and that thereis another side whichmust be placed before the Government. TheAnglo-Indian papers are readby the officials. If they read the vernacularpapers, it is from translationssuppHed by the Oriental Translator. Now the papers I

File1-Tilak Trialwish to read fromare the issues of the Bengali oi May 5th, 6th, 8th,9th, 10th, 13th, 28th, and31st. All these papers are put in not with theobject that the whole of themshould be read here in Court, but with the objectthat any one of you Gentle-men of the jur)-, who wishes to see what the natureof the controversy wasmay be able to look at them. I will read only one ortwo sentences fromeach. I will take the Bengah of 5th May, page 5,Col. 1,2,3. First there

120

is the reply to the Englishman', (Reads "TheEnglishman has gone mad"down to "machinations of the agitators.") Then thereis a quotation fromBurke. In the issue of ]\Iay 6th page 5 Col. 2 and 5there is another attackoi\t\i& Englishman. (Reads "Now the Englishman hsiSsoidi this is amiserable " down to " police have at lengthunearthed. " ) Then in theBetigali oi May 8th, page 5, Col. 2 and 5 there is acomment on the Pioneerand Englishman combined and summary of the Pioneerarticle on the ' Cultof Bomb.' (Reads "as a result down to Congressmoderates, — extremistsand Co.") It then comments in the strain that allthis is nonsense andwhat is required chiefly is a poHcy of coercion. Wethen come to the issue

File1-Tilak Trialof May 9tli, page 5 Column 2 of the same paper whichquotes a passage fromih.^ Englishman (Reads "commenting on the Bengal"down to "unfairinterpretation of that word.") Then the j5£';;^«/zsays " there is hardly"down to " dastardly outrages. ") Next we have \h^Bengali oiX^'Co. May.It is a comment on the Pioneer and Englishinantogether very much in thesame strain stating (Reads "Nevertheless in theasdays" down to "repre-sentive measures") I will refer now to the Bengaliof the 13th May page 5Col. 1 and 2; there is a quotation there from theMadras Timescommenting upon this ( Reads "The injuries" down to"qualities ofthe English") There is also a paragraph that refersto the news of Mr. R.C. Dutt (Reads "We learn from the writer" down to"quote".) You may sayif he thought so why did he not warn the Government? In fact a warn-ing was given to Government in the council by Mr.Gokhale, but very littleweight is attached to our opinion there , We mightas well cry in the wilder-ness. It is not only the daily press and the weeklypress but also the month-ly press that does all this. I will refer to ModernReview for June 1908 page547 published at Allahabad. There is a summary ofthe whole political situa-tion. (Reads. 'The political situation and WesternSentiments ' ) That isthe heading and that is the subject of the article.( Reads "we never expec-

File1-Tilak Trialted" down to "such measures of Justice ".) It takesthe view that suchmeasures are imported here. Then there is aquotation from MathewArnold's description of murder. It also quotes thePioneer and gives thegenesis of the bomb in Bengal and controverts thePioneer'' s view. This iswritten in the cool atmosphere of Allahabad. Thereare a number of otherquotations, e. g. article signed A. K. C. whateverthat may mean. NextI will read from the 'Indian World' for May, page472. It is a monthlymagazine and says much the same thing. It is anarticle on the progressof the Indian Empire and on the bomb-outrage .(Reads "Attempts havebeen made" down to "responsible for the party andthen down to "membersof the party are well-known".) It goes on to say(Reads from "battle ofPlassey' ' to end of article.) It is written by aman who assumes a German name.Here is nother from Madras far away from the sceneof the outrage. I put inthe Hindu of May 9 page 4 Col. 1. The writer quotesMr. Gokhale's speechat the Legislative Council with regard to theobjection why the leadersdid not warn Government of the coming evil. (Reads"Govern-ment Official Class" down to the end of para.) _ Sothewarning was conveyed a year ago . It is the samephrase as is used byme in the ^^ Kesari,'' Now we come to the Hindu of21st May 1908.

File1-Tilak TrialIt gives Dr. Rash Behari Ghose's speech to theCongress delegates in 1906

121

(Reads down to "perhaps in Russia.'" J ]\Ir.Gokhale, I believe, gave the samewarning further on. I have here the Hindu of May22nd, page 6, Col. 2 and3. The article I want to read is a reply to thePioneer by Nepal Chandra.It says; the Pioneer in commenting upon RussianAutocrats gave oneview and commenting on Indian Autocrats gave anotherview. The letterwas addressed to the Pioneer but was not publishedin the Pioneer. It ap-peared in some other papers. (Reads down to " suchconditions do notlast. ") And yet the Pioneer thinks that they canlast in India. Then wehave the Indian Patriot of May 24th, page 4, Col. 1and 2. It is a popularMadras daily paper. (Reads on "Anarchist inCalcutta" &c.) . Of course thewriter takes the Indian view. (Reads "Will theanarchists" down to '."griev-ances.") There is also an article headed "The Dangerto England."(Reads article down to "Official acts inParliament.") I also have here theissue of the same paper for May 14, page 2, Col. 1and 3. ( Reads " Anglo-Indian " down to "animosity and hatred.") In thesame paper for May I5thpage 4, Col. 1 and 2 (Reads "of the people at large"

File1-Tilak Trialdown to "bureau-cracy.") I will not read extracts from 'theyl/(i;^rrt5 5V«;z<^«r«? but will passon to the Punjabi •3Si.^\h& Tribiine. In the Punjabiof 9th May page 3,Col. 1. we find f Reads " Even the most depraved"down to "otherraces," j and there is a reference to Mr. JusticeAmieer Ali.

Then we have Tribune of May 9 f page 4, Col. 1-2.)This paper be-longs to another party (Reads "it must be admitted"down to " Anglo-In-dian Journals.) Next we come to the Indian Spectatorof May 9 page362, Col. 2 and 3. This paper which is known to bethe moderate of themoderates says (Reads "now what shall we say of"down to "class of punish-ment."; He then goes on to represent both sides.Then we have the6^z//amif2 which is published in this Presidency. Ihave put in ih.^ IndianSpectator oi May 16th, page 381, Col. 1. It is muchin the same strain.It takes the same view as the other papers do. It isnot only the Marathi-^speaking community which takes this niew. In theissue of the Gujaratidated May 17, page 705-707, Col. 1-3 we find(Reads:— "who was to con-ceive that discontent was growing ." J Then we have'dn^ Gujarati of May31st page 777-7^ Col. 1 to 3. Here is an eulogy onthe Bomb. The writersings to the Bomb, "you do not come to thisPresidency." Next there is the

File1-Tilak Trial''Indu Prakash'' of May 5th page 7, Col. 1-3. It isa Bombay paper and theparty to which it belongs is the party to which the^^Kesari^' does not be-long. Mr. Joshi said so the other day. It takes thesame view that it isthe bureaucracy which must be reformed. Then itquotes Mr. Gokhale'sBudget speech in the Viceregal Legislative Councilwhich is the same thingdone in the Kesari. ( Reads " there is much in thepresent situation" downto "as the succeeding years continue"). Then comesthe Dnyan-PrakasJiof Poona of I9th May page 2 col. 1-6. It isconducted by one whoassists Mr. Gokhale with his ser\ices in theSer\-ant of India Societysince it was formed by him. (Reads "Representation^\ill not eradi-cate the evil. "J In the issue of 8th May page 2col. 5-6 of the samepaper ( Reads down to ' ' the sentences are nearlythe same " ) . I ^ haveiDcen reading from the translations but they can bereferred to in theoriginal. I have put in the original issues. Thewriter says that the authoritieshave been led to adopt these measures because publicopinion is bound to

122

be disregarded in India. Then there is theChikitsaka of May 27th page3 Col. 2. Here we have a paper completely hostile to

File1-Tilak Trialthe A^-^^rz takingthe same ^dew as the latter. It admonishes theAnglo-Indian papersfor siding with the Anarchists in Russia, and forcoming down onall sorts of people in this country and holding themresponsible forthe Bomb outrage. Now there are also someopen-minded Anglo-Indiansand the Bishop of I^ahore is one of them. In theAdvocate of India ofMay 17 page 7 Col. 4 we find a speech in which thisBishop says (Reads"order can and may be preserved" down to "bypersecution." j Hetakes the same view as we do. That is what I say. Itis not a racial contro-versy. It is reaUy a controversy betweenpro-Congress and pro-Bureaucraticparties. I now put in the Maratha of May 24 page 246Col 1-2 giving thesummaiy of the opinions in England. We had by thattime received theHome papers. The Indian party there takes the viewthat the Bomb incidentis the result of certain mistakes in theadministration. Some one says wehave to face the fact that the India of to-day isnot the India of twenty yearsago. We have Mr. Nevinson's opinion and also anextract from a Frenchjournal the Paris Times. Then we have the opinionsof representative men suchas Sir William Wedderburne and others and theremarks of the DailyChronicle^ ilie Mojming Leader &c. (Read down to"served the purposes") .These are the notes and views on Indian matters in

File1-Tilak TrialEngland. My own viewsbefore the Decentralisation Commission are alsothere. I have put them inmy statement before this Court. They say in Englandthat the situation can-not be improved except by having resort toself-Government. That iswhat I stated in March last. I will now quote you anextract from theTimes of India ^2Xq.^M.2,y\2 page 7 col. 1. It givesthe views of LordMorley on the situation. Speaking at the CivialService Club dinner he said(Reads "I think I can show" down to "aliens to risein India" j He admitsthis and as regards the remedy he says (Reads "ourfirst duty" down to'desirable.') It is the British Government that hastaught us to ask forfreedom of rights and for self-Government. Thencomes a rather unpleasingobserv-ation (Reads "unless we somehow" down to"will not be theirs, jHe plainly admits that it is the duty of theGovernment at this time toreconcile the maintenance of order with politicalprogress . That is LordMorley's view and that is the view I have taken inmy article. The despotismof the bureaucracy can only be checked by thedemocratic followingin England. That view of Lord Morley is veryimportant when we cometo consider Government in concrete and Government inabstract. When thehighest head of the administration thinks in thatway then it is not seditionfor a mere writer like myself to say that pure

File1-Tilak Trialrepresentation is needed.There is another speech by Lord Morley on thesubject that the partitionof Bengal was a mistaken one. The controversy wasraised in the Houseof Lords. Now what was Lord Morley's reply to LordCurzon? f Reads " Iaccept Lord Curzon 's views" down to "no damnednonsense." J Then thereare certain other papers. This is, as I have said,about the cause of unrest.Diagnose the views and say if repressive measureswould be a better remedy.Then there are two other papers I wish to read,extracts from the Sudharakof May 11th page 2 col. 2 and the Snbodha Patrikadated May 10th page 2

123

Col. 2. and May 17tli page 2 col. 2. These are thepapers which representdifferent parties of the Marathas as Mr. Joshistated in his cross-examination.I am not going to read any more extracts. What Ihave read will give you anidea of the kind of controversy which was ragingwhen I wrote the articles.There was gross abuse of native aspirations in theAnglo-Indian papers. InEx. E dated 12th May 1908 which is put in to proveintention, you see(Reads" since the commencement of the bomb affair"down to "agitation.")That is nothing but a fairsummary of other views. AsI pointed out, about

File1-Tilak Trialthe word missionaries, there is a wrong translation.( Reads from "but thispaper " down to " Swadeshi and Boycott agitation "j. Then comes a noteabout the cancelling the partition of Bengal f Readsdown to"partition itself "jThat is my comment. (Reads down to "Swaraja.")Nowthis passage was readto you and you were asked from it to infer that thatwas the opinion of theKesari on Swaraj . ( Reads down to ' ' vice " ) Isay it is no use waiting tillthe disease develops. (Reads down to "Partition ofBengal" j This is put in toprove intention. It was really quite necessar)- tobring the import of thisinto articles read to you. You cannot understand thereal import ofthis unless you know the circumstances under whichthe articles werewritten. This note has been put in by theprosecution. It was quite neces-sary to show what the /'zV? 7/ £'£'r. Statesman^Englishman^ Times of India.Advocate of India said and compare it with what Ihave said on the point.Now I will explain to you the position taken up inthe first incriminatingarticles. You can understand it better now.

You know the right view to take. For every sentencehere I canpoint out a parallel passage from the literature ofour party. The argumentsare not invented by me. I have of course representedthem in a somewhatdifferent form. The whole party is responsible forthem. In charging me

File1-Tilak Trialfor sedition this will have to be borne in mind vizwhat impression will itproduced on the Marathi-speaking public. The Marathipublic is familiarwtih every one of the views I write . Then whateffect can these articleshave on their minds ? All they say is, well, thereply has been well given.What is the effect likely to be made on the minds ofthe Marathi-speakingpubHc if there is nothing new ? I may be charged, infact I am chargedwith attempting to excite their feelings. They arefamiliar with all already;so how would my writings prejudice their minds ? Ihave been writingnothing which I have not written for 28 years ; itis no new doctrine. ^ Itis from that point of view I draw your attention tothe fact that the ^'iewexpressed in my article has been already expressedpreviously by someleaders of our party.

Now I will commence to read the articles pointingout the errors in thetranslations. (Reads from Exhibit C, 'KesarP dated12th May 1908.)

C Reads "no one wiU fail to feel" down to "EuropeanRussia.")

The Marathi [words I have used are i^«jr!T^ ^^ ^m^ ITT^^ ( Readsfurthermore" to "rebels.") The word used by me is^¦^. &percnt;-j^ means bothphysical sorrow and pain. The words I have used inconnection with the

File1-Tilak Trialpainful incident at Muzufferpore were not what theyare made in the trans-lation. The translator evidently thought it would bedisrespectful to use the

124

word women so lie translated f^qi by ladies andjTi=m by white. Theword "hatred" there as I have explained should be"disgust". (Readsto " historical fact. " ) That is rather tooliberal. (Reads down to "whiteofficial class , " ) You will notice that the wordBureaucracy follows and youwill see that the translator has put a marginal noteto say that this is print-ed in parenthesis in the original in English. TheEnglish word is putthere to qualify what is meant by white officialclass. We have often to usecoined words and when we coin words which do notexist in Marathi, weIDrint the word in English till the word becomesfamiliar. Bureaucracy isdistinctly specified as distinct from theGovernment. Having expressed re-gret at the Muzufferpur outrage, I say that itcannot but inspire (fill) manywith disgust and after writing a description of thatoutrage we state thatsuch a crisis has occured in Russia. Proceedingfurther the article goes onto say that the poHtical situation in India isreaching this stage. We saywe never expected that the crisis was coming so

File1-Tilak Trialsoon. (Reads to "obsti-nacy and perversity") I have already stated that theword "perversity"should be "stubbornness" which is the word used inthe original, and asthe translator has rendered it in another place. Itappears that mattershave been brought to this stage by the obstinacy andstubbornness of theIndian Bureaucracy. It will be recollected that oneof the points made bythe Prosecution was that the word "perversity"showed intention. Youcan now infer what motive the writer could have hadin his mind when heused the innocent word stubbornness which has beenmistranslated by thetranslator. (Reads from "in such a short time" to"white official class.")These latter words mean nothing more than theBureaucracy. The word"white" is introduced by the translator, it is notin the original. Whatis meant is that we never thought that the Indianpeople would so soon, onaccount of the acts of the arbitrary rule of theEnglish Bureaucracy, beinspired with disappointment. (Reads to "therebellious path.") The re-bellious path is described further down as the pathof the anarchist. (Reads"but the dispensations of God are extraordinary." jThe original wordsare ^qjw T^^8jror arf^.

Of course the English parallel "^the dispensationsof God are inscru-table would do but in translating we must be careful

File1-Tilak Trialto use the phrasewhich exactly represents the original ( Reads from "bomb explosiveat Mazufferpur" down to " mad-cap " ) The words arestronger therethan in the original (Reads" It does not appear fromthe statementsof the persons arrested") When we search for thecauses we have toexamine the case and in connection with the bomb along explanationis necessary. We must discover the reasons thatprompted this fanaticto do this deed and then discuss his motives,much'in'^the same way as Ihave read to you there are murders and murders !(Reads "even Kudiram"down to "what then should be said of others.)" Nowthis does not conveythe sense of the original. The other is an emphaticway declaringindignation and one can easily see that it isself-evident thatothers feel greater pain than the man Kudiram. fReads to "such

125

monstrous deeds") There is nothing remarkable aboutthat.It is from the statements taken by the policeofficers. Again here the word"British rule" is a mistranslation for Bureaucracy,arbritary or despoticBureaucracy. (Reads "to do away with the oppresiveOfficial Class. ) I

File1-Tilak Trialhave explained before that the word is despotic. Themeaning of that isthat the power is not shared with the Government.Unhappily the sameword J^cTift stands for three or four words indifferent contexts as you haveheard when Mr. Joshi was giving his evidence. I amnot complaining ofthe tyranny of the Bureaucracy but of the unlimitedselfish power which theypossess and exercise without reference to pubUcopinion. They may do itaccording to theory, but as a matter of fact they donot consult publicopinion because the Bureaucracy is a despotic formof Government.Bureaucracy is a word used by a number of poHticalwriters. You willfind it used by writers on political science andwriters of constitu-tional history and by writers of ordinary history. Iintend readino-to you at the end a few passages from books in whichthe wordBureaucracy is used. And as I have said it is usedin the Englishnewspapers. What reason is there for supposing thatthe word "despotic",here is meant for tyrannical ? I gave Mr. Joshi thissentence totranslate. "A despotic government need notnecessarily be tyrannical;" andthe translator himself found it difficult to expresstwo shades ofmeaning except by. using the same word &percnt;^q\to make it clear. It is adifficulty which exists in the political vocabrdaryin Marathi and even the

File1-Tilak TrialEnglish vocabulary is deficient. Writers ofpolitical science use the worddespotism in the sense of benevolent despotism. Wehave to write and wehave to express the sense and express it in the bestpossible form and in thebest words that the Marathi language supplies. Incourse of time we mayhave some new words by which we will be able toexpress ourselves moredefinitely and there will be two separate Marathiwords to express "des-potism ' ' and ' ' tyranny ' ' . But at present wehave to use such wordsas are in vogue already, which the people use andwhich appeal to theirminds. If you read Trench on the use and abuse ofwords this is madeclear. He says there is an evolution going on in theoriginal meanings ofEnglish words, A similar process is taking place inMarathi. We have touse words in political matters and these notes inthe A'esa?'z have been res-ponsible for adding several words to the Marathilanguage during the past28 years. The burden of coining new words falls uponthe Kesari; it is afact which is well-known and our readers know themeanings of the wordswhich we have used in these articles. Even otherpapers have adoptedour words.

The Court then adjourned till Monday 20th July.

File1-Tilak Trial126SIXTH DAY.

Monday the 20th July 1908.

At 11-30 A. M. Mr. Tilak continued his address. Hesaid: —

My Lrord and Gentlemen of the Jury: —

I think you are now fairly initiated into thecontroversy of which these

articles form a part. The controversy is an old one.It is not raised on this

present occasion by the bomb-outrage only. TheAnglo-Indian view is

well put by Lord Morley in the words ' ' martial lawand no damnned

nonsense." That is the attitude taken up by thepro-Bureaucratic Press.

" Put down everything by means of martial law". Anysign of discontent,

the least sign of agitation for political rights isto be put down by military

force. That is the attitude of one party. The otherparty says that these

crimes must be put down, but only by grantingconcessions and then only

File1-Tilak Trial

can permanent peace be restored. For myself I amglad to say that the

present head of the Government is more inclined tothe anti-Bureaucratic

side than to the pro-Bureaucratic side. I want topoint out that these parties

are not of recent origin but are as old as 30 yearsor say from 1850, You

must o-o back to that. I have said this article is areply to certain charges

brought against the popular party by the leadingEnghsh journals like the

Pioneer^ Englishman ^ Asian &c. To save your time Iwill go on and read the

articles as they are here translated and explaintheir relations to each other.

As I have said in the beginning, the prosecutiondoes not give me any ground

for knowing what exactly the objectionable passagesare . I have been able

by reading Renter's message sent home which appearsin papers received

here by last Mail to glean something, but it doesnot give me a full knowledge

of what the passages are on which the Prosecution

File1-Tilak Trialrely, f Reads article of

12th May " The Country's Misfortune. " commencingfrom " No one will

find," down to "obstinacy and perversity of thewhite ofiicial class." j I have

already explained that the word perversity (fn?lf)is mistranslated. It should

be stubbornness. It may be translated stubbornnessas the translator has

himself translated it in another place. Perversityis not the right word.

(Reads down to "Secret assassination of theauthorities.") Assassination

is not the word I used although it occurs here andalso in Exhibit E.

I would like to bring to your notice the originalMarathi word which is (^T^J.

You have in English the words killing, murder, andassassination.

Killing simply means to act without intentien, whenthere is intention

it is murder, when there is treachery the act isassassination. How are

we to translate these into Marathi? Killing istranslated by {^^) murder

File1-Tilak Trialby (jf^TJ and assasaination by (gjT^'^j. (Reads downto "white official

class.") "White official class" ought to be "EnglishBureaucracy."

Those are constitutional words which I have used inmy statement. We

manufacture some words because there are no words inMarathi to express

the sense. (Reads down to "mutinies and revolts.")The original words

here are {^) and CsrtjThat being so the words shouldhave been

translated "revolts" and "disturbances" which wouldhave been a more

correct translation. (Reads down to "oppression").This ought to be

127

iw^) which means repressive." (Reads down to " theirown countrymen.)The Pioneer writing in 1902 against the Russianatrocities said it wasthe direct result of the repressive poHcy. Whyshould it not be contendedthat unrest in India is from the same cause? It isin the nature of a replyto what the Pioneer says about the bomb-outrages.(Reads down to

File1-Tilak Trial"patience of humanity.") The question is whether thespirit that marksa peace — loving nation still exists in India. Ofcourse we have deterioratedbut we have a claim still to some of that spirit oflove (Reads downto " flat refusal to their request. " ) The wordv^^^ in reference to LordMorley means that he is a scholar. Now that word isused as indicatingphilosopher. I have used that word to show that heis more a scholar thana statesman. (Reads down to "inebriated with theinsolence of authority.")the word is ^rr^^^IfT^R in the original which means' ' blinded withpower." The translator's phrase is not my phrase. Ihave used the word f^^)which means Winded. It is the word used by Burkewhen he is speakingof the official administration. It also occurs inthe article whichSir. WiUiam Wedderbuni contributed to the BombayGazette on thequestion of the Bureaucracy. So that it is not myphrase. Readsdown to " inebriated with the insolence of authority". Now theargument is it is impossible that not even a fewamongst these thirtycrores of people should become turnheaded, ffanatics ). (Reads down to" excess " and the next sentence.) ( Reads from "experience shows "down to " tries to kill him.") This is a morefamiliar simile than the usualone of a stag at bay; The simile of the stag is usedfurther on. The simile of

File1-Tilak Trialthe cat is more easily understood by theMarathi-speaking pubHc. f Readsdown to " as occasion demands. "J Of course theBengalis are better thancats and if a cat will turn to bay it is quitepossible that Benglis will alsoturn to bay if pressed too hard. Lord Macaulay hascalled them a mild andeffiminate race. This is a reply to that and Dr.Rash Bihari Ghose hasspoken in the same way. The same idea has beenexpressed in a numberof BengaH papers and also by the delegates who wentto Englandto explain the situation. ( Reads from article "Itis true thatIndia has been for many years " down to "spirit ofvehemence, "jVehemence is not the word in Marathi, it is on^^. Itdenotes thatyou have the fire of spirit in you. It is a popularexpression thatforeign rule demands these qualities (Reads-"butunder no circumstances"down to " perpetually in slavery "). That is inreply to the argumentswhich have been used that the people arepeace-loving, and it is the agita-tors for political rights who roused them and thatif we put them down,the people will be quiet. What we say is that it isa part of human nature;there is a limit to loving and honouring. Humannature can only stand itup to a certain point. I had to reply to this. I sayabuse my party or abusethe idea, but I say you can not support the argumentthat the people are

File1-Tilak Trialaltogether completely devoid of sense andself-respect. Then the articlesays ( Reads " it is not our rulers " down to "rehgious faith. "_ ) Thewhole policy of the Government of India is settledon the considerationof these points. I shall presently read an extractwhich will show you thatthis is a statement of fact. ( Reads " Enghshstatesmen have " down to•" by some English writers " ) The writer herereferred to is Mr. Thorburn

128

who was Commissioner of the Punjab. (Reads "when onecountry," downto " self interest alone. "J He goes on saying thatone country does notacquire another for philanthrophy . It wants to getsome profit out of it foritself as well as for the people of the country thatis acquired. There arethree views of the question, simple benevolence,simple self-interest andthe two mixed together in a varying degree. I willread you what Mr.Thorburn says: —

"With a view to secure that good will, we gave Indiawhat was mostlikely to content her people — impartial justiceinternally between manand man ; but externally we subordinated India'sinterests as a whole toour own. In furtherance of these principles, we

File1-Tilak Trialstrangled those of ourDependency's industries which clash with England's —India's silk, calico,muslin trades, for instance-and we rigorouslyexcluded outsiders from sharingin the profits of our Indian estates. After themutiny, when the nationcollectively became directly responsible for thegood Government ofIndia, we opened the country to all comers, and gaveIndians as full ameasure of justice as was compatible with thesuperior claims of our ownpeople. With these objects in view, we completed thedestruction of thehandloom cotton weaving manufactures of India, andinsisted on the abolitionof the duty on imported cotton goods, and not untilthe Treasury wasempty and the whole press of India, English andVernacular, united foronce in history, condemned with one voice theselfishness of our proceedings,did we in 1896 sanction the reimposition for revenuepurposes of verylio-ht cotton duties . It was the coersion of shameand fear, and not thepricks of conscience, which induced Parliament toaccept what all Indiawas demanding — shame at the " expose" of ourselfishness, fear thatpersistence in refusal would alienate from us notonly Indians but Anglo-Indians as well. — {^India page 33 ^ 1902]

He says that we are governed by selfishness, ( Reads" in myopinion " down to "on her administration." ) As I

File1-Tilak Trialhave said there arethree ways; (1) India should be governed for thebenefit of the Indians,which has been expounded by Mill. There is anothertheory also that ( 2 )India should be governed by enlightenedself-interest. Thorburn is not alonain holding that theory; there are several Englishwriters who hold the sametheory. In any case it is not my phrase. Thecomplaint at present is thatIndians are not allowed any voice in theadministration of the country. Thatwas the evidence given by myself before theDecentralization Commission. Ihave not said it secretly in Marathi only, but Ihave stated it openly beforethe Royal Commission, specially brought out fromEngland to find a meansof removing the complaint. (Reads "The wholecontract " down to "whiteo£B.cial class in their own hands ' ' ) the wordused by me is " ^^ ittCT ' '"monopoly" ; that is the ground of complaint thathas been urged for thepast fifty years. How can you say that this phrasewill excite disaffection,when it has been used by Indian writers for the pastfifty years and it hasnot yet excited disaffection ? ( Reads down to " beuncomplainingly accep-ted ") . Now I am explaining in all these passagewhat the bomb-outragesare due to. One party says it is due to the IndianPress, to the Extremistsof the Congress party and to all kinds of agitators.I say it is due to failings

File1-Tilak Trial

129

in the administration^ and if that administration isimproved then thisagitation will stop. As a matter of course, all thisagitation by the Cono-ressand by the Political leaders is the result ofdefects in the administrativesystem. That argument is taken up naturally for thepurpose of writingagainst the Bureaucracy. The Pro-Bureaucratic Presssays that it is theseagitators who have brought about all these troubles.L,et us put them downby a military and police regime. Our case is that itis not a true indictmentand that it is the system of administration that hasdone this work already.We say that the Bureaucracy is becoming intolerable( not tyrannical ), notbecause of actual tyranny but because of theabsolute despotic exercise ofthe power held in their own hands. It is opposed torepresentation bythe people. With the spread of education and thecoming in contactwith other foreign nations it will be impossible forthese to continue.It is a controversy which has been going on forthirty years ever sinceMr.Dadabhai Nowroji wrote his book 'Poverty andun-British Rule in India.'It is a goodly volume of five hundred pagespropounding the same idea, andas far as I can see his arguments have remainedunanswered upto this time.

File1-Tilak TrialMajor Evans Bell in his work ' Our Vassal Empire 'takes the same viewof the situation. He says that some day the twoparties are sure to comeinto conflict, one refusing to move an inch and theother knockino- at thedoor for admission to the house of Bureaucracy. Thatis the way it hasbeen put. It is not my own argument. It has beenadvanced for a largenumber of years and I have simply used it to showthat the arguments ofthe pro -Bureaucratic Press are not logical and notsound. ( Continues read-ing from article ' whatever things we might do 'down to ' our hands.' )The learned Counsel said in his opening address 'they want power. 'Well, certainly I do not deny that; if that isseditious then I think all theseworks I am reading from must be confiscated and bedestroyed. The De-centralization Commission asked me if I wanted thischange at once. Theword ' gradually ' in the original has been left outby the Translator andlost sight of and it is suggested here that I havestated that the whole powermust come into the hands of the Indians at once.(Reads down to ' anotherRussia.' ) If the Bureaucracy had its own way, if itwas not checked bydemocratic feeling in England, they will go tofurther lengths than this. Thereare checks even to a Bureaucracy, one of the checksbeingthat the Bureaucra-cy is subject to Parliament. (Reads down toautocratic sway, j It is a clear

File1-Tilak Trialwarning clearly stated. It is one of the cases towhich Lord Curzon refers.The word oppressive has been wrongly used here. Theoriginal word istg^ifr, which means repressive. The question here is— is the repressive ad-ministration likely to be popular in the time tocome ? And if not, shouldsome change not be made ? And as I have saidbomb-outrages are a signalfrom which some warning may be taken by Government,f Reads down to* horrible deeds.' ) I have pointed out what thatmeans. That means thatit cannot but be so. The original words I used hereare sr^fT fTF^mfrir Tlf-•JTR JTTfnr; not that that was their will or theirdesire. Again to suggest that isnot new, not of my own saying. The Hon'ble Mr.Gokhale himself iu oneof his speeches in. the Legislative Council beforethe Viceroy said ;

130

' This theu is the position. A few men in Bengalhave now taken to-preachino- a new gospel, and here and there in thecountry one occasionallyhears a faint echo of their teaching. But theirpower to influence the

people to the extent to which they are able toinfluence them — is derived

File1-Tilak Trial

mainly from the sense of helplessness and despairwhich has come to prevailwidely in the country, both as regards the prospectsof reform in the adminis-tration and as regards the removal of particidargrievances. The remedyfor such a state of things is therefore clearly notmere repression but acourse of wise and steady conciUation on the part ofthe Govrnment. '

The warning was given by Mr. Gokhale and also by Dr.Rash BehariGhose in his Budget speech of March last. That wasthe warning andDr. Rash Behari Ghose said the same thing.

* The choice lies before you between a contentedpeople proud to be thecitizens of the greatest Empire the world has everseen and another Irelandin the East. For I am uttering no idle threat, I amnot speaking at random,for I know something of the present temper of therising generation inJBengal, perhaps another Russia. '

He said this in his welcome address of the Congressof 1906. Why thiswas quoted by The Englishman. It is curious to notethat The Englishnidinquoted this and stated that because Dr. Rash BehariGhose gave this warn-ing therefore he must have known something about thebomb-outragesbeforehand. If he had not given that warning theywould have said 'well,

File1-Tilak Trialhere you say you desire the welfare of theGovernment, why then did younot o-ive the warning?' f Reads again from articleof 12th May down to 'As yousow*so shall you reap' ) The Translator has put inthe Enghsh maxim whichis practically the same. But I rely upon theoriginal and I will only refer todifferences in the translations which in my opinionare serious. ( Readsdown to 'human nature.' ) I am not the first to putsuch a soliloquy intothe mouths of the Bureaucracy. Sir P. M. Metha saidon one occasion: —

Iri'^v-" "In progress of time large numbers ofEnglishmen trained in the maxims-of despotism and saturated with autocraticpredilections, would return totheir native home, where they could not but lookwith intolerance on freeand constitutional forms. This is no visionaryspeculation. Careful Englishobservers have already noticed traces of suchtendency. In the course of afew generations, such a tendency, if not checked,would develope into amighty influence and the free and constitutionalGovernment of Englandwhich has been so long deprived of the world wouldbe placed in the dead-liest jeopardy. With a policy of force, as I havesaid before, the resourcesof India would be drained in the first instance inmaintaining large costlyarmies and huge services ; the country would be thustoo much impoverishedto admit of her developing the great material

File1-Tilak Trialresources which naturehas showered on her,

"In India, impoverished and emasculated, the EnglishMerchant wouldonly be an emaciated attendant in the rear of theEnglish Soldier and theEnglish Civilian , and English commercialenterprise, more glorious eventhan her military enterprise, would find nocongenial field.**

131

Sir Pherozshah Mehta in his speech welcoming thedelegates tothe 20th National Congress in Bombay in 1904 alsosaid: —

"I wish to speak with all respect for thesedisinterested advisers ; but Icannot help comparing them to that delightful " PoorMan's Friend, " SirJohn Bowley, so admirably depicted by Dickens : —"Your only business, mygood fellow, is with me. You need not troubleyourself to think about any-thing. I will think for you; I know what is good foryou; I am your per-petual parent. Such is the dispensation of anall-wise Providence, * * *What man can do, I do. I do my duty as the PoorMan's Friend andFather, and I endeavour to educate his mind, byinculcating on all occa-sions the one great lesson which that class

File1-Tilak Trialrequires, that is, entire depend-¦ence on myself. They have no business whatever withthemselves." Iventure to say that to accept this advice would beequally demoralizing tothe rulers and the ruled. It ignores all the laws ofhuman progress, itignores the workings of human nature, it ignoresenvironment and surround-ings. We may be as well told to cease to breathe, tothink, or to feel.Political agitation there will always be. The onlyquestion is whether weshould suppress and bottle up our feelings and hopesand aspirations and ourgrievances in the innermost recesses of our ownhearts, in the secret con-claves of our own brethren, or deal with them in thefree light of-open day.'

I have said the same thing. They ignore theawakening of humannature. Of course the instances introduced arerecent ones, that havetaken place since 1904. I simply wanted to show thatthe Bureaucracyignored this aspect of human nature.

We have literature of our own and those books areheld to be quitelegal. They have never been suspected and when I wascalled upon for areply I took my stand upon the principles of my sideand I am here toanswer for these charges. (Reads ' most of theAnglo-Indian papers *4own to ' leaders. ') You will again see that thisreply to the

File1-Tilak TrialAnglo-Indian press is written by myself on anoccasion of provocationand not to excite disaffection. If you were in myposition when suchRepressive Acts were passed, if they were passed inyour country,would you not come forward and say what I have said?Of course itmay be unpleasant advice but a distinction must bedrawn betweenunpleasantness and sedition. (Reads down to ' thoseleaders again'^^That is the advice of the Anglo- Indian Press and insumming itlip I have only omitted the abuse which they havecast upon us.I have tried to make my point clear by arguments andthe only commentJ have made is that the advice is most silly. Then Igo onto give an illustration. (Reads down to'unrestrained official class alone' ),The dam begins to give way; but is it due to therain or the flood?The rain represents the official class, and theflood the popularieeling. That is only an argument which I tried touse when endea-vouring to show where the real causes of the presentunrest lie. (Readsdown to 'real state' j. There is anotherillustration. We revolve roundthe world's axis and think the world is revolvingand not ourselves.We do not perceive our own mind. The Bureaucracymakes mistakesbut attributes those mistakes to others. Autocratic,irresppasible,-these

File1-Tilak Trial

132

are words that have been used for the past fiftyyears, and evenstronger words in describing the situation. In fact30 years ago people-were quite satisfied with it. But with the spreadof education newaspirations have arisen in the hearts of the people.I do not wantto conceal this fact. The Bureaucracy may have donesome good butit has also done harm, and the time is now ripe fora change. Arewe to be charged with sedition for saying what hasbeen said, in thelyCgislative Council, in the Congress and beforepublic audiences inEngland and in India ? I don't think that this viewcould be objectedto when put forth in a newspaper in reply to certainattacks. It remainsfor wise men to point out the real cause and lay theblame on propershoulders (Reads down to 'subject people'). That iswhat the wholeagitation in India is. There is one pro-Bureaucraticclass, and in theCongress there are two parties-one callingthemselves Moderates and theother calling themselves Nationalists, or, as theyare called by othersthe Extremists ; and then again there is a class whoare neutral. Ihave tried to give an explanation of this class here

File1-Tilak Trial( reads down to' the path of passive resistence' ). I may tell youat once that I amappealing to this latter party. The aim and objectof these parties isthe same. They both want to have a share in theadministration,but one of the parties wants to push it a littlefurther. ( Reads down,to 4n all places' ). For the words 'indignation 'and 'exasperation' thewords should be 'fire of enthusiasm.' Of course theillustration is that thesun remains the same but his heat is less in Simlaor Darjeeling thanin Marwar. So the cause may be the same but theeffect may-be different in the case of different persons. Imight pointout that in the original the words are ' thousand-rayed sun. ^i( Reads down to ' by an unpopular system ' ) . Thismeans despoticsystem ; my words in the original are ( ^^tC\?:r^'TT^r&percnt; ) ( Reads from ' Ifthere is any lesson ' down to ' Muzzafarporebomb-affair '. ) Thepower. of Government is not denied. They can put astop to it at anytime by a reign of terror or police regime. But isthat what Governmentshould do? It is not by resorting to repressivemeasures that anythingcan be done. As L^ord Morley has said there is to be' martial Law andno damned nonsence ' ( Reads ' develope again inanother part. ' )•The simile is taken from medical science. Some

File1-Tilak Trialextraordinary medicine isnecessary. The boil is not an extraordinary diseasebut this is an extraordinaryboil. ( Reads ' subject's great misfoitune ' down to'horrible calamities.')It is a misfortune to the country, a misfortune tothe ruler and the ruledand to the whole country. The capital K in thesentence is a mistake.It is a common noun. The capital ' K ' has beenattributed by the trans-lator to the Printer's Devil. As translated by theTranslator it meansa ruler ( Reads from ' it is plain ' j It is not amilitary remedy; it is acivil remedy. I have said we rely upon getting thisremedy. Onediagnosis is that the cause is the agitators. Wehave said that we hadbeen asking for certain rights for 50 years and thatwe must get someattention. No attempt is made to answer the Pioneerin the samestrain although it has recommended that we should bewhipped publicly bythe sweepers. We have written in a calm andreasoning fashion. ( Reads

133

down to ' improper deeds ' ) .' This means that oneman here and one man theremay feel disposed to use this wrong means . (Readsdown to * instead of being-stopped ').. It is likely that Government may getexcited ^over the matter;

File1-Tilak Trialit would lead to more repressive measures; but atthe same time advice isgiven to Government that it would not do to adopt amore repressivepolicy as suggested by the Pioneer andi otherpapers. (Reads down to'persistently and constitutionally ' ). All thesewords have to be coinedanew. It is not denied that people who make effortsin a legal and con-stitutional manner need fear anything. In fact thatis the principle uponwhich all political agitators go in India whetherthey be Moderates orNationalists. The only thing is the degree to whichwe shall go indemanding these measures. ( Reads down to ' out ofcontrol ' ). Becausesome people go mad or grow wicked you cannot saythat all politicalagitators in India are seditious. That is a wrongway of reasoning, and isone that is adopted by the Bureaucratic Press. Thewhole matter is rea-soned out in this article by means of argumentswhich we have found inthe literature oi our party. Here and there anillustration may fbe new butthe arguments are familiar to the readers of theKesari for thelast 28 years. The arguments that are there, arefamiliar to thereaders and to the leaders of the Indian parties forthe last forty orfifty years. What can be the effect upon theirminds? The same effectas ten or more years ago. They would only say thattheir arguments

File1-Tilak Trialare marshalled very cleverly. I have marshalled myarguments withoutabuse or vilification leaving it to the readers tosay if that is notmore impressive (Reads down to ' Political rightsare seditious' ).It is a wrong inference which has been drawn. Thatis not the point;the point is to whom are the articles addressed, andwhat is theirpurpose? You have to take into consideration thatthey are addressedto the authorities and are not intended to stir upthe people.All these arguments help in putting forward ourviews in a particularway. The Bureaucracy does not like power to passfrom their hands; butit would be wise for them to do so and they shouldtake a warning fromthis and know the state of the country. The article,however, says it isno use murdering an officer. If one is murderedanother comes and suc-ceeds. It is foolish to suppose that the BritishGovernment can be affectedby the murder of any high officer, because anotheris sure to succeed him.{ Reads down to ' exhausted ' j. The people may beas peaceful, asharmless, as poor as they can be; still just ( as Ihave said ) as the catturns to bay, they may turn to bay. Advice istendered to both sides,and I have given a double hint. I have said topeople, ' your acts arewicked, you cannot affect Government in that way; 'and I have said to

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment 'these acts are wicked and must besuppressed, but in order toprevent them in the future some rights should begiven to the people;'( Reads down to 'despair'. ) The capital 'K' thereis wrong; it shouldonly be a small letter, ' Traga ' is a word adoptedinto Marathi long ago ;it means that a man inflicts some injury uponhimself so as to throw theblame upon another. You injure yourself to bringyour wishes beforeanother. That kind of practice is always the resultof persistent refusaliof one's wishes. When you beseech and pray and beg,and you do not get

134

you desire then ' traga ' is committed. The word Iused in original is(^T»rr) self-infliction. The advice given toGovernment is that theirpolicy should be such that the public should notturn to bay, not evena few of them. This is the advice we are tenderingto Government onthis present occasion. We are giving that advice inplace of bad advice-such as that which is given by the ' Pioneer ' andother Anglo-Indianpapers. We say do every thing to punish outrage atMuzafarporCyto stop these fanatics, but give us some measure ofpolitical reform.The difference between Lord Morley and ourselves is

File1-Tilak Trialthe degree ofreform which is to be granted. His is a modestmeasure of reform, wewant something more. He said at the Civil Servicedinner 'You cannot govern by mere repression'. If that is the viewof Government, ifthat is the view entertained by I/ord Morely, thento state this view bysuggestion before Lord Morley' speech was publishedin India is notsedition at all. (Reads down to ' Repudiated it').Our duty is not onlyto point out faults but to suggest the remedy. Whatis the good of tellinga man that he has phthisis, if you cannot tell himthe remedy, f Readsdown to " such extremities"). We do not want thesecrimes, theseoutrages; there is no question about it. But ourwhole duty as subjectsis not done simply by expressing our abomination.Violence is repudiat-ed and advice is given to Government and to thepeople not tobecome excited. Of course the advice may beunpleasant to theBureaucrats, but unpleasantness and sedition are twodifferent things »I would like you to notice that the tree ofanarchism is calledpoisonous by me. (Reads down 'to misfortune tonsall'). It is a mis-fortune to all around, as I have said, that thisMuzafarpore affair shouldhave occurred at this time, that the Pioneer shouldgive such advice,and that Government should ignore our advice. All

File1-Tilak Trialthese things area misfortune. Some times one has to say adisagreeable thing,but if the advice is beneficial no body cancomplain. You musttake quinine occasionally although it any beunpleasnt to you.We do not want these wicked outrages. We advicepeople to stopthem; if our advice is not followed what can we do?The matter is notin our hands. Providence has not left it to us. Wemerely deplorethe wicked acts and at the same time we have a rightto say thatthese acts can be stopped only by such and suchmeans. This isa reply to the Pioneer who says that the peoplethroughout theland should express their abhorrence for thisoutrage. I say do itby all means, but do not forget that it is necessaryto give advice toGovernment for avoiding it in the future. AlsoAnglo-Indians want tomantain the Bureaucracy as it is at present; theyonly want to utilise thesemisfortunes. They are not in a temper to appreciateour efforts to obtainsome concessions. I come down then to a review ofpolitical argumentsby which the article is actuated. I say the dutiesare mutual. Thereis one duty for the subjects and a correspondingduty for the rulers.(Reads down to 'irresponsible') . I have said that,and the word irresponsi-ble is used throughout to mean irresponsible to the

File1-Tilak Trialpeople, not subjectto the opinion of the people, as the Government inEngland is.

135

Irresponsible to themselves is not the meaning. Itis used in thepolitical sense meaning not subject to, and quiteindependent of, the peoplethemselves ( Reads down to 'is inevitable'). We saythat in the caseof Russia and Turkey. It was the state of Englandbefore the Revolution.(Reads down to *with that object in view to-day'sarticle has beenwriten').

Now in writing that article, I ask you what was thereasonfor writting it ? I have read to you extracts fromthe Pioneer andEnglishman and other papers to show how they utilizetheseincidents for their own purposes. This is a reply tothat. We have as-much right to put our views before Government. Withthose Papersbefore you now, judge of the wording in thesearticles by comparing themwith the article of the Pioneer. If the Anglo-Indianpapers are tohave a monopoly of tendering advice to Government,then it would bebetter if we stop the Vernacular Press altogether.In return for the

File1-Tilak Trialvilification and the abuse showered upon us by theEnglish Press, thisarticle with calm reasoning lays the popular viewbefore the Government,,with the arguments that have appeared in theliterature of the party forthe past generation. Perhaps some of them may be newto you, but youdo not read the Vernacular papers. They are not newto the people or tothe Government. We have been asking this all along,and on the presentoccasion it was necessary for some political partyto put forth their viewsbefore Government, and I felt impelled to do so. Thebomb-outrage is apeg on which these articles hang. That is the viewthat this articletakes of the situation. I am not ashamed to own it.It has been writtenfor that purpose, and I want to explain to you thepurpose for which itis written. In the Dean of St. Assaph's case thereis a small note sayingthat the pamphlet was written with such and suchobjects. I rely upona similar ground. I have said why this article waswritten. I have refer-red to the Pioneer^ Englisliman^ Times of India.&c., they have mention-ed me by name. So what ground is there to supposethat this is not areply to the Pioneer ? That I am not entitled toconvey the v'ew of theMarathi-speaking population ? I might say very trulythe view of thewhole of India ? Of course there are some Indians onthe side of the

File1-Tilak TrialBureaucratic Press just as there are Conservativesand Liberals in Eng-land. Would you hold anybody seditious under Section124 A, for writ-ing as I have done, in England ? There are twoparties in England andit is the duty of each party to represent its ownviews. There is nr. thingwrong in that. If the Vernacular Piess shouldcontinue to exist itshould exist only for this. I was bound to criticisethe abuse of thePioneer and to express my views couched in decisiveterms. Is that se-dition? What has been done ? The outrages have beenrepudiated andcondemned. I do not speak here with the object ofmaking youconverts to my view, but when one party goes on likethat and abusesthe other, they challange the other party. I knowthat some of you willsay, * yes the Pioneer has said so and so, why^don'tyou file a suit ? ' Ifwe want to charge the Pioneer^ we must file acomplaint under Sectiott153 A. But to do so we must obtain the sanction ofGovernmentr

136

Government must sanction the Prosecution, andGovernment is not likelyto give that sanction. A question was asked inParliament as to whether theGovernment would peosecute the Pioneer ioi making

File1-Tilak Trialcertain statements, noreply was given. The papers arrived only hereby lastmail. It was Mr.O'Grady who asked why the Government would notprosecute the Pioneerand other papers. I do not want them to beprosecuted. I do not wish thatany other Editor should be in the same predicamentas I am today. I do notwish it even for my enemies. I do not want to bevindictive, but I thinkit is an instance to show. If it had been a personalmatter I would certainlyhave j51ed a suit against the Editor of that paper.I might mention the caseof Captain Hearsay who was libelled by the Pioneer.He did not waste anytime in filing a suit. He went to the office andhorsewhipped the Editor.That is how you, gentlemen of the Jury, wouldproceed if insulted likethat and your name were concerned. The people of thePanjab oncerequested the Government to prosecute the ' Civiland Military Gazette *for certain libellous statements made against them,but the Governmentrefused to do so. If the Government believes thatthose papers are ac-tuated by honest motives, though their language maybe very strong,how can they believe that this article written inmuch milder language byme is seditious ? It is only a reply to the advicetendered by the Anglo-Indian papers to Government. As a matter of fact weare entitled to greaterlatitude than the Pioneer since the Penal Code says

File1-Tilak Trialthat what is done inself-defence is not an offence. That referes toproperty and I maintainthat property includes reputation. Are we not to beallowed the right ofreply ? We have referred to the article in thePioneer in very mildterms; we have replied with arguments only. Are weto allow the Pioneerto go on abusing the mass of our readers and of thepeople in this coun-try ? In that case it would be much better toabolish the VernacularPress, and leave the Pioiieer in the field alone. Itis my duty toreply to such vilification. Some say that politicalagitators are the causeof all this. They must be hunted down and whipped bysweepers. Butour party says their argument is not sound, theyheve gone mad. For theproper view is very different. These arguments aredifferent. Thesearguments are set forth calmly and reasonably. Ishall show you presentlyby reading a few quotations from importantauthorities that the descrip-tion of the Bureaucracy I have given is not a newone. It has been givenby eminent writers who are popular in England. Youhave further toTemember that the Bureaucracy is not the Government.To criticise theBureaucray is not bringing into contempt or hatredthe Government esta-blished by law in this country. The Bureaucray callthemselves theServices and for the purpose of 124 A the servant is

File1-Tilak Trialat once turned into theMaster or the King. They are the Services and nobody pretends tosay otherwise. I will read you a passage from MajorEvans Bell's book*' Our Great Vassal Empire " page 6. { Reads 'Government is not theadministration' ). Hence the administration is notthe Government; theBureaucracy represents the administration underGovernment; the Bure-aucracy is not the mainstay of the British Empire.Are there not provin-ces of the British Empire which are not governed bythe Bureaucracy ?The Bureaucracy is not a synonym for ^British Rulein India \ Every

137

writer in India has made a distinction betweenGovernment and theadministration; and it is now recognised that tocontend for the right ofself-government, as ruled in I. L. R. 34 Calcutta,is not seditious. Howcan you demand a share in the administration unlessyou can shov/ thatthe present administration has some defects ? If youcannot find anydefects you have no claim for reformation. It may beunpleasant to theBureaucracy, but there is nothing in it which bringscontempt or hatredupon the Government— I mean Government in theabstract. It may not be

File1-Tilak Trialagreeable, suppose I am the trustee of a certainestate; you may remove thetrustee, but that does not destroy the estate. TheBureaucracy are think-ing that they are Government established by law. Itmay be unpleasent,annoying and disagreeable for them to be told thatthey are not so ; butthat is not sedition. I will read to you a few moreextracts. I will firstread to you from "Problems of Greater Britain" bySir Charles Dilke: —

' Foreign observers are, however, given to severelycriticising ourpretence that our Government of India is not adespotism ; and, on thecontrary they defend it as the perfection of anautocracy, a benevolentand intellegent rule which in their opinion suitsthe people governed,more closely than is the case with any otherGovernment on theEarth's surface. It is indeed difficidt to see uponwhat ground itcan be contended that our Indian Government is notdespotic . Thepeople who pay the taxes have no control over theadministration.The rulers of the countn,- are nominated fromabroad. The laws aremade by them without the assent of representativesof the people. More-over, that is the case which, as has been seen, wasnot the case under thedespotism of Rome, or in India itself under thedespotism of the Moghuls,namely, that the people of the country are excluded

File1-Tilak Trialalmost universallyfrom high military rank, and generally from highrank in the civilservice. The nomination of a few natives topositions upon the Councilsis clearly in this matter but a blind, and it cannotbe seriously contendedthat the Government of India ceases to be adespotism because itacknowledges a body of laws. On this principle theRussian Governmentis not a despotism, because the Emperor never takesa decision withoutsome support iov his views in the Imperial Senate.'

That is the argument of the pro-Bureaucratic party.Despotic is the'term used in Political discussion and that is theword that I have used. Imight remind you that Sir Charles Dilke was once amember of theMinistry and was a leader of this view. Sir W. Blunthas said thesame thing; —

' The Government of the country was vested in aBoard of Directorssitting at the India House, and delegating theirexecutive powers to a CivilService of which they themselves had in mostinstances been originally mem-bers , and whose traditions and instincts theypreserved . It was a Bureau-cracy pure and simple, the most absolute, andclosest, and the freest ofcontrol that the world has ever seen; for, unlikethe Bureaucracies of Europe,it was subject neither to the will of a Sovereign

File1-Tilak Trialnor to public opinion inany form. Its selfishness was cheeked only by theindividual good

138

feeling of its members, and any good effected by itto others than 'those wasdue to a certain traditional largeness of idea as tothe true interests of thecompany. *

Also Mr. Mill says in his * RepresentativeGovernment ' :'• —

' The Government of a people by itself has ameaning, and a reality; butsuch a thing as Government of one people by anotheidoes not and cannotexist. One people may keep another as a warren orpreserve for its ownnse, a place to make money in, a human cattle farmto be worked for theprofit of its own inhabitants. But if the good ofthe governed is the properbusiness of a Government, it is utterly impossiblethat a people should direct-ly attend to it. The utmost they can do is to givesome of their best men acommission to look after it ; to whom the opinion oftheir own countrycan neither be much of a guide in the performance oftheir duty, nor acompetent judge of the mode in which it has beenperformed. '

File1-Tilak TrialThese are English authors but there are also remarksof Mr. Bryanwho is the Repulican Candidate for the Presidentshipof the United States,,who in his book ' India under Great Britain ' saysthe Governmentof India is arbitrary and despotic.

That is what we have been saying to audiences inEngland, that iswhat we have been asking from the platform and inthe Press and booksfor the last fifty years. And now to drag me in 1908before aCourt because I have said the same thing afterprovocation from thepro-Bureaucratic Press is not, apart from thelegality of it, even logi-cal. I am not reading extracts from Sir HenryCotton, Sir WilliamWedderburn and other members of the Congress party,because theProsecution might say ' Oh they are just asseditious and we do notprosecute them because it is not good to do thatjust yet.' This is the creedof the party, and I have not gone beyond that orused words not previouslyused. There was a good occasion for my writing.There was provocation.A challenge was thrown out and I had a duty todischarge. And it was inthe course of the discharge of that duty that thisarticle was written. Ithink, I have quoted enough. I will not tire yourpatience byquoting any more. There are a number of other bookshere. Now I

File1-Tilak Trialwill read to you the two notes written on the samedate 12th May 1908and marked Exhibit E. ( Reads from ' since thecommencement of thebomb affair ' down to ' in future' ) . Again this isan article writtenupon the provocation received. It distinctly namesthe papers to whichthe reply is intended. ( Reads down to ' stopped '). This means thatthe outrages are due to political agitation, andthat all political movementsin the country should be stopped. ( Reads down to 'Tarkata Shastra.')Here I have used two marathi words meaning logic andsophistry, andthey can only be understood in that language. Inthis article again thebomb outrges are deprecated but I have also pointedout that we mighthope that these outrages will draw the attention ofEngland to our grieva-ces as they did in Ireland at one time.

We now come to the Article of the 2nd June^ (At thisstage the Courtadjourned for lunch.)

139

I have to read you the Article and the twoparagraphs dated 12th Mayand marked Exhibits D and E. The incriminatingArticle is marked ExhibitD, and the two notes are marked Exhibit E, but theProsecution have

File1-Tilak Trialput in other Aiticles dated 19th May, 26th May, 2ndJune 1908.Instead of reading the next incriminating articleafter this I thinkit will be better to read the Articles in theirchronological order, so thatI will be able to show you the various phasesthrough which thematter passed, and you will be gradually led up tothe Article of June 9.The three articles are put in to prove intention,but I want to read to youall the articles in the controversy. The firstarticle was written on May 12th,and on May 19th &c., other articles were written inreply to articles that hadappeared during the meanwhile. You can infer theintention of one articleby reading the three. Certain things had beenpublished on which criti-cisms were necessary. Those criticisms were made inthe articles of the19th May . On May 26th we received news from Home bythe EnglishMail (fully a fortnight laterj and we found thematter discussed in theEnglish papers. Then we published our article ofJune 2nd which was asort of review of the whole situation. Then twonotes are based onthis in the issue of the 9th June, and I put in thearticle in the issue of16th June to complete the series. It was not put inby the Prosecution.These two articles of the 9th June, refer to theexecutive acts of Govern-ment. So from week to week the controvery wascarried on as fresh

File1-Tilak Trialarguments and fresh facts were urged by the otherparty. Then followedthe two legislative Acts which were opposed. It is acontinuationof the same subject. So how can it be that thearticles werewritten with the intention of exciting the people ?If you will readthe articles you will find that I wrote every week,and touched upona different situation, and met the arguments of theother parties indifferent ways. I do not think the controversy isyet over. In orderto acquaint you with the details, I mean to read thearticles in theorder of their appearance. Of course I am not goinginto details as I didin the first article. These articles are put in toprove intention. You arenot to rely on them like the incriminting articles.I am not going todeal so fully with them, as it would take up so muchof your time. Ishall have to read them fully, but I will only makea few remarks as Iread to you. When the article of the 19th May waswritten you willfind that during that week certain telegrams werereceived stating thatmeetings had been held in Bengal, presided over bythe Maharajaof Durbhunga, expressing son,^w and regret at '^thebomb-outrage, atthe same time condemning the outrage and attributingit to politicalagitators. Now these people belong to our party andit was necessary

File1-Tilak Trialin the interests of the community to contradict thecharges made, andto expose the charactar of those meetings. You willfind there were nomeetings all over India, but a few meetings whichwere managed by in-terested persons. We had to show that these were notrepresentativemeetings, and we had to issue a warning toGovernment. We did notdisagree with them in expressing abhorrence andregret for the outrages,but regarding the other part we thought that theywere playing intothe hands of the other party. To prevent that thisarticle was written, and

140

consequently it is headed "A Double Hint" or adouble warning. It waswarning to the people themselves, and to theGovernment, that thesemeetings should not be taken as representative, withthe corollarythat at the present time it was necessary to makereforms in theadministration. I have said in this article thatbomb-throwing is not themethod of obtaining Swarajya. It is not a logicalmethod. It is notsanctioned by morality. (Reads to "suicidal in theextreme." j. It meanssuicidal to the cause of a country. That is themeaning of the heading,,/a double hint.',

File1-Tilak Trial

We may be right or wrong, but we place our viewopenly beforeGovernment, so that Government may not be misled bytheseresolutions. I have said that though Anglo-Indiansmay be glad ofthe few meetings they might mislead Government. Italso gives areply to the charge upon the political agitators inIndia, that they aretrying to get power into their own hands for selfishends, while theBureaucracy is carrying on the Government forbenevolent purposes.There is a point of differnece in the diagnosis. Wesay outrageous conductis one of the effects of a bad system ofadministration. They say it is dueto agitation. (Reads down to "in India".) Byattributing it to agitationand the heated feeling as it is at present in India,they think that thistrouble will cease by putting down agitation. It isa struggle betweentwo parties, like the I^iberals and Conservatives ;just the same as theSocial Democrats in England and the Liberals. Inthis way the controversygoes on. The House of Lords is an old institutionand has done muchmore good for England than the Bureaucracy forIndia, and yet it isa subject of controversy. C Reads down to ' in thismanner ' .)It is a way of party tactics, that each party shouldpress forward itscause on every favourable occasion. This principle

File1-Tilak Trialhas Ibeen used by thebureaucratic Press, while on the other hand it hasbeen contested andrepHed to by the Native Press.

I will not refer to the whole litereature of ourparty. But the evi-dence is so strong that it will convince anybodythat this system of adminis-tration has been outgrown by the intelligence of thepeople. ( Readsdown to '• in their minds. " ) Here again we have amistake in thetranslation. The word in the original is ( ^?n"T )-( Reads down to 'humannature. ' ) This is the same argument used in theprevious reply butwith a different phraseolgy. ( Reads do^m to ' falsereport. ' ) 'Report',is not correct ; the original word used is (g^ )which means outcry or alarm.( Reads down to 'public opinion.' ) This is theHistory of the Europeancountries in the 19th century. ( Reads down to 'political agitatois. ' )It is something like this. Arsenic is a tonic iftaken in certain quantities,but because a man commits suicide with arsenic thatis no reason why-arsenic must not be used at all. Because firesometimes burns a city, mustit be ^ abolished? Because a turn-headed man takesto violence, shouldall political agitation be stopped ? That argumentis false ; it is notsound; and it is misleading, f Reads down to'selfishness.' ) Thatmeans that one party wants the Bureaucracy. It is

File1-Tilak Trialnot done from igno-rance but from self-interest. ( Reads down to 'wouldbe considered

141

foolish.' ) That is taken from history. It is an oldstory of the Peshwa,that Anandibai changed one letter in the order givenby Ragunathrao toa Military Captain and in the place of ^ in ( t^xmj) she substituted theletter m and made it ( jtRRI ) which made it 'murder ' instead of* arrest. ' Would this justify a cry against femaleeducation? Simi-larly to stop all political agitation because oneperson has taken it intohis head to murder an official, is a fallacy. (Reads down to ^ in anycountry.' ) This is only another illustration. Youknow when theelectric trams were started in Bombay there were afew accidents,but it would have been foolish to stop the tramsbecause of those accidents.( Reads down to ' India alone.' ) It is a falseprocess of reasoningto make the political agitators responsible for whathas happend in Bengal.( Reads down to ' initiate it. ' ) When we havebefore our eyes whathappend in Ireland, France, Germany, and Russia, wecan see that it is notdue to political agitators, not to what these youngmen read in the news-

File1-Tilak Trialpapers. (Reads down to * our rulers.') There againis the warningI offer to the Anglo-Indian Press and to Government( Reads down to' Prescribed by L,aw, ' j It is expressly statedhere that the law oughtto be put into action, though Government ought notto take repressivemeasures, f Reads down to * we are helpless.' )There is no excite-ment. This is an historical parallel taken fromP^uglish history.There again is a mistranslation; the original wordis ( j^w^ ) f Reads downto end of aiticle. j This article again was writtenon the 19th of May.The view of the party is that we condemnbomb-outrages as strongly asany one in the country, and our claim is thatmatters have run such acourse, it has now come to such a pass in thiscountry that measures ofxeform must now be taken. That is the view of theViceroy, that was theview of Lord Morley at the Civil Service Dinner. Hesaid mere repres-sive measures will not do. That is the view thatthis article takes. Otherpeople hold the same view. The purpose of thisarticle was to warn Gov-ernment against taking these resolutions as properexpressions of opinion.The object appears at the end. It appears from thedifferent sentences ofthe article and if you do not go behind the articlethere is plenty ofmaterial from which the object of the article can begathered. This

File1-Tilak Trialarticle then forms one of the series, as I havestated, and it has just beenruled by His Lordship that they are all part of onetransaction. Thesearticles were written week by week as informationcame in. I contendthat these articles cannot be used to infer theintention. Even if you didn.se them you cannot reckon them all as onetransaction. We will nowcome to the article of 26th May which is headed 'Thereal meaning ofthe bomb.' fThe Marathi originals were handed to theJury with transla-tions;. By the side of the articles, you willnotice, are pubHshed Englishopinions on the subject of the bomb-outrage. Thisarticle is written anda summary of new topics in connection with thecontroversy, given. Someof the EngHsh opinion is favourable to our party andsome to the Anglo-Indian party. It is a divided opinion. Just as itwas divided here it wasdivided there. But no one thought of prosecuting anyone there as I havebeen here for writing these articles. The article isEx. G. is dated26th May and was based on English opinions receivedby the mail of the

142

23rd. These first appeared in the Mahratta^ -whichis published on Sun-day, and were then translated into the Kesari of the

File1-Tilak Trial26th. The articlewritten embodies those views and also talks aboutthe general commotion.It is a matter of satisfaction that the Governmentof India and lyordMorley take the same view. Lord Morley says that itis a modest reformthat he is introducing, and the Viceroy said that hewould not be dauntedor turned away from his purpose of introducing thereform by reason ofthe recent occurrences. After all it is the NativePress that has won thebattle to a certain extent. Even in England therewere two parties andthat you can see from the recent controversy betweenLord Curzon andLord Morley. Lord Curzon representing the school of* Martial Law 'and no damned nonsense about concessions', — andLord Morley the other.Lord Morley said that such a policy could not befollowed in view of thehistory and traditions of the English people. Thereis the same contro-versy here. { Reads. ) ' The drowning man catches atthe neck, ' is nota proper rendering; it should be ' he is drawing hisarms round hisneck. ' (Reads ' Swadeshi boycott ' extracts.) Ihave read from thePioneer and other Papers relating not only topolitical agitation, but alsoto Swadeshi, boycott, and other matters. Theagitation is regarded with dis-pleasure and condemned as seditious. (Reads; lettingloose the Mussal-

File1-Tilak Trialman gundas &c.) These are facts which have beenproved and are not exag-gerations. I may say here that I am not going towaste time by dwelling uponall the mistranslations of these articles as theyare only put in for the pur-pose of showing intention. { Reads ) ' Vetal ' isone of the many kinds offiends. , He is accompanied* by other ' pishachas'.Here what is meantto be conveyed is that when one gets mad he makesothers mad ; theway to stop that madness is not to get hold of thelatter but to take posses-sion of the source, f Reads ' reverberation of yourtyrannical acts j *This means in other words that the bomb is areaction. It may bedue to madness or wickedness — that is notdiscussed-but it is reactionand not the original impulse. It is not as thoughParliament or eventhe Liberal party don't contain * turn-headed 'people. I have said thereare two sets of opinions in Parliament ; the onewhich is represented bytheHon'ble Mr. Rees is in favour of the viewsexpressed by the Pioneer^the Tzmes of /?idia and the Englishman, The otherset of opinions isrepresented by the Indian Party. Mr. Rees said thatthe repressivemeasures were very mild upto now, but hereafter theyshould be farstronger. { Reads to ' when a man sees nothinghopeful ' ). It is the hopethat keeps up man in the straight path, and Dr. RashBehari Gosh says

File1-Tilak Trialthat * despair, has caused these young men to goastray.' (^ Reads to' called resolution. 'J This is a quotation fromSpencer's ' Social Science ',{ concludes reading the article ). This is what hasbeen practicallyacknowledged by the Viceory, who said that he wasquite assured of thenew spirit that is engendered in the Indian Nationby the recentsuccesses of Japan, and it was his desire to leadthe people in the rightpath and to guide their movements rather than tosuppress them. The sameview was expressed by Dr. Rash Behari Ghosh and theHon'ble Mr.Gokhale in the Viceroy's Council during thediscussions on the SeditiousMeetings Act or Bill. (Reads from Gazette oi Indiapage 186 from the Vice^

Toy's speech on the same Bill beginning with thewords * I am wellaware of the political hopes and ambitions of thepeople of this country&c. * You will see that these very arguments wereused not only innewspapers, but also in the Legislative Council.There is no secrecyabout them and their reasonableness has beenacknowledged by the Vice-roy himself. It is not a new thing. Here in thisarticle they appear ascriticism of Mr. Rees. These views, which have beenpublished in theGovernment Gazette of the 2nd of November 1907, were

File1-Tilak Trialauthoritativelygiven by the gentlemen I have referred to at themeeting of the LegislativeCouncil and have been finally approved. The onlydifference between theGovernment and the Indian political party is thatthe reforms are notthorough-going as explained by Lord Morley. He saidthat they are onlymodest. We say that they ought to be morethorough-going. The aroii-ments used in the articles are the same as thosewhich were put forwardin the Legislative Council by the membersrepresenting popular feelingand finally when the Viceroy had to reply to them hespoke in the samestrain in which the article concludes, f Reads: ' wemay repress seditionwe may repress it with a strong hand &c. ' j Thereis no question what-ever that if there is anything illegal theGovernment of India is preparedto repress it and it has the right to repress it.The controversy has beencarried on in the Legislative Couacil, in Parliamentand in the E)nglishand Anglo-Indian Press and I say it cannot besedition if it is reproducedin the vernacular press in the manner in which ithas been done here.It may be urged that in the vernacular press theymight write anythingthey like as what they write is not translated. Thatis a mistake. It istranslated every week. The Government has a specialdepartment for thepurpose, and summary of every article is translated

File1-Tilak Trialand sent to Govern-ment. What we write is not in the dark or behind theback of theGovernment.

There are two more articles before we come to thesecond incriminat-ing article. One of these is that of the 2nd June. Iam not going tocriticise every line of the translation. I will readit so that you may havethe whole controversy before you and judge in whatspirit thesearticles have been written. The article of the 2ndJune was writtento answer an objection which has been raised againstthe popularparty. It is asked do you condemn the bomb ? Yes.Then why don't y«uhelp Government in the repressive measures whichGovernment istaking ? What is the position of the party ? Whatview do you take of thebomb ? There are certain thinkers who say if youcondemn bombsyou must go with Government as if there is no otheralternative. Eithercondemn bomb and be with Government, or exposeyourself to thecharge of being considered seditious. That was theargument usedand this article is a reply to it. What we say isthat we condemn thebomb, but we also condemn repressive measures. Wesay use enoughlepressioa for the purpose of punishing thiswickedness but beyondthat no more repression is needed. That is the

File1-Tilak Trialposition we take, and theresult is that we do not side with the Governmentand we do notapprove of the action of those who committed theoutrage. That isthe clear position to which we were driven by ourtraditions, by our beliefs

lii

and by our opinions. That was the charge madeagainst the IndianPolitical Party. It was 'Your position is notlogical. How doyou explain it ?' We say 'We condemn the outrage,but we also condemnthe repressive measures.' The Press Act was passedafterwards butat the time of our writing Government's intention ofpassing it was known.It was to be passed at Simla and on the 8th of Juneit was actuallypassed. (I shall have to read a few extracts fromthe proceedingsof the Legislative Council in order to explain toyou the criticismwhich we passed upon it. j And explanation wastherefore necessary, that ifwe condemn the bomb we should condemn the repressivemeasures also.Hence the article. It is translated. 'The secret ofthe bomb.' But the moreproper rendering would be 'The Ethics of the Bomb' .There is an article on'The Ethics of the dynamite' in the ContemporaryReview of 1894 from

File1-Tilak Trialwhich it appears that in 1893 a dynamiter wasdiscovered with explosives inhis possession. Immediately the Parliament met andpassed the Act. Atthat time there was great sensation and excitementin England and theviews expressed in the Contemporary Review aresimilar to those whichare expressed in this article. In fact, an extractfrom the ContemporaryReview was read by the Hon'ble Nawab Sayad Mahomedin the Viceroy'sLegislative Council. The same view is taken more orless in thisarticle. When a man walking in the street stumbles,he begins toconsider what is his position. Bomb is wicked but itis a signal to pauseand consider. Out of evil coraeth good. It rivetsour attention andmakes us inquire searchingly into the present stateof things. We havecondemued the bomb-outrage. It is immoral, it isillegal, it is suicidal,it is a felonious deed. Now the last stage of theepisode comes in whenthe Explosives Act is passed, and the Anglo-IndianPapers say 'Youare hypocrites. You condemn the bomb but you do notside withGovernment in the represive measures. ' We reply 'We are nothypocrites. We are sorry we cannot side withGovernment becauseGovernment has taken to a repressive policy. ' Ourposition is apeculiar one. We condemn wickedness, but we cannotside with the

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment in their repressive acts. This isexplained and maintainedin the articles of 2nd and 9th June, and the Act iscriticised in details in thearticle of the 16th June. I believe it is the-fi";;?//?-^ which says "Yourposition is logical, but it is certainly notsympathy towards Government."f Reads article of 2nd June; ' From the murder ofMr. Rand &c. ' j Hereis a comparison between the two. The Rand murder wasmore: or lessa personal affair, here is the outrage in Bengalwhich is a national affair.I also make a distinction not only in this articlebut also inother articles, between the anarchist as such — pureand simple whodoes not want any Government — and a man, misguidedthough he may be,'who uses anarchist methods owing to his fanaticism.Modern sciencehas made Government powerful in the use of thedynamite and otherexplosives for the purposes of war. It has alsofurnished a weaponpowerful enough for the purpose of terrorism. Thenfollow in a philo-sophic train of thought the consequences or theeffects of such acts, whichyou may call wicked or terrible, which arrest theman's attention andmake him think of the course* of life he has topursue. { Reads ' Death

145

File1-Tilak Trial

is ordained at the very time of birth &c.,j This isan observation upondeath taken from western philosophers showing thatcontemplation ofdeath makes a man lead a holy life. (Reads down to 'Pride of Militarystrength. ' ) Here it is shown that the bomb willnot cope with themilitary power. It is impossible. I will read to youa similar extract fromMajor Evans Bell. He says that as long as theadministration goes onsmoothly the officials think that everything isalright. They do not careto ascertain if anything is going on wrong untilsome disorder comes tolight and then they begin to consider the situation,( Reads extract fromMajor Evans Bell at page 92 ' If the British peoplein their homes andin their Parliament &c. ' ) He says that theBureaucracy is an unnaturalform of Government. This book was written in 1875 byan officer, aformer Resident of Mysore. ( Reads the article downto ' wisdom. ' ) Whatis said here is that bomb outrage ought to bechecked but it serves as thediagnosis (to use medical phrasology) of a diseaseor as a warning of acertain symptom from which Government should take alesson or hint. The"bomb does not destroy Government nor has it anypower to do so. It onlydraws the attention of the Government to thedesirability of certain reformsin the administration. ("Reads ' the attention of

File1-Tilak Trialthe authorities was direc-ted towards the disorder in the plagueadministration. ' ) Here it ispointed out that bureaucratic administration iscarried on irrespectiveof the wishes of the people. At that time fthat is1897) various sug-gestions were made to Government to moderate therigour of the plagueadministration. But not one of them was taken intoconsideration. Wesay the bomb serves the purpose at any rate ofdirecting or rivetting theattention of the Government to the state of theadministration. f Reads'some things must be viewed from the people'sstand-point &c.,') As I saidBureaucracy , is intolerant of criticism. TheHon'ble Dr. Rash BehariGhosh gave a warning at the Council Meeting and sohe is now told that hemust know something about the bomb.

Hzs Lordship:— \i you are not tired I should like tosit a little further.

Accused: — I am now tired as I have been on my legsthe whole day.

The Court then adjourned to the 2Ist.

SEVENTH DAY.

Tuesday 21th July 1908.

File1-Tilak Trial

Accused .-—Among the papers I put in as Exhibits areNos. 17, 21,56, 58, 59, 62, 63 and 65. Will your Lordship kindlydirect that theyshould be handed to me by the Clerk of the Crown ?

His Lordship : — Certainly.

The Papers zvcre handed to Mr. Tilak.

My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jury : — I read to youyesterday the articledated 2nd June. It is followed by an article dated9th June which formsthe subject-matter of the 2nd and 3rd chargesagainst me under 124 A and

145

153 A respectively. What I have to say in thebeginning is that the mat-ter dealt with in this article is somewhat differentfrom the other articlesread to you previously. There the subject-matter isthe Explosives Actand Newspapers Act. These Acts were passed on the8th of June at onesitting. As regards the Explosives Act certainobjections were raised, notagainst the Act itself but it was held that certainsections of it were likelyto prove oppressive in their administration, and itwas also debatablewhether a Press Act was necessary at this time.These were the two

File1-Tilak Trialmeasures which formed the subject of criticisms inExhibits E and D.So you will see that the two matters are entirelydistinct and the papersto which I have to refer are different from those towhich I have had to referpreviously. I have here the proceedings of theSupreme lyCgislative Coun-cil. I wish to read to you certain portions from theproceedings and thenread the articles to you, and after that I willcomment on both the arti-cles of the 2nd and 9th June 1908. I will completethe reading of thearticles, and the criticisms can come afterwards.Now the Explosives Actwas a new Act introduced here after the model of theEnglish Act of 1883and there is another Act passed with regard toincitement to murder.Both were hurriedly passed on the 8th of June 1908.This article waswritten soon after, without examining all thedetailed sections of the Actbecause they were not available except such summaryas was telegraphedon Saturday evening. That was on June 9th and thedetailed commentsand criticisms were put in on June 16th in the formof a leader. Now inthe proceedings of Council it will be found thatopposition was made byNative Members of the Viceroy's Council in thepresence of H. E. theViceroy. They did not vote against the Act but theyexpressed certainobjections. Of course, Native members of the Councilcannot expect to get

File1-Tilak Triala majority against any such measure. All that theyhave to do is to protestand to stop there. The act was passed at one sittingwithout previously pub-lishing the draft of the Bill and all we got at thetime was the ex-pression of their dissent. No one ever objected towicked persons, whocommit outrages, being punished. But it wasnecessary that the Actshould not invest the Police with powers which mightbe used to theserious annoyance of the people. The definition of *Explosives ' mayinclude anything. It may include even saw-dust whichis used for resist-ing or moderating the force of an explosive. It mayeven include kero-sine oil. That was the objection taken in England in1883. But thecase in England is different from the case in India.There you have a Par-liament to watch the administration of the Act, buthere the whole powerwill be in the hands of the Police. So that, here toadopt a measurebecause it was adopted in England, was neither fairnor just.

The second objection was that the Act would not inany way puta stop to these outrages. That was the objectionraised by the Hon:Syed Mahomed who is one of the Moderates. The Indianreform partythroughout India took the same view. Both these Actswere objected to inthe Indian Papers and the Hindus and Bengalis

File1-Tilak Trialequally condemned theActs. Now as I read the^e two articles to you itwill be quite clear toyou that these articles take the same view. Theyshow that a measurelike this will not carry out the object Governmenthad in view. And it

147

is the same argument again that unless concessionsare granted to thepeople it will be impossible — even if you investthe Police with higherpowers and improve the machinery, you cannot put astop t'j these things.However the Act has been passed and we have nothingto do with it now,except for the pupose of explaining the meaning ofthis article. Now Iwill read to you the article. It is dated 9th Juneand is headed ' TheseRemedies are not lasting. ' I have not said thatthey are not remedies atall. The Marathi heading is ( | ^tpt f^^TTJK ^rrffrT) meaning that they cannotbe held to be permanently lasting. ( Reads from 'this week ' to ' re-pression. ' ) I call it a new policy of repressionbecause the Seditious"Meetings Act was passed in November 1907 and theseActs were passed inJune, 1908. ( Reads ' the fiend of repression haspossession. ' ) Thatis how it is translated, but I cleared up that inthe cross-examination of

File1-Tilak TrialMr. Joshi. ( Reads 'every five or ten years. ' )This refers to the repres-sive policy carried out in 1897. ( Reads ' the fact.' ) There are all thefacts. C Reads to ' ideals. 'J These, Gentlemen, areagain wrong trans-lations. All that means that the fiends ofrepression still swarm whenthe Liberal party is in power. Then the simile iskept up there; someone there is, who controls the evil genius, and thatman is calld a 'Mantrika.'The ' Mantrikas' carry out that control. They haveto observe certainrules and observances for carrying out that control.In plain words itmeans they ought to have been controlled by LordMorley, but somehowthey have not been controlled by him. ' Mantra ' isa spell. One whoexercises a spell is called ' Mantrika ' ; it meansthat the Government ofIndia is not controlled by the Secretary of State,and that being so thatcheck on the policy in India has not been used inthis case. Then you havethe policy of repression explained. ( Reads upto 'repressive policy.')It is when those causes which produce the fire ofenthusiasm in a nationare made to go back, that the policy is said to beretrograde, or re-pressive. ( Reads from ' liberty of speech,' to'nourish it.' ) This is an his-toricl truth put in to show that by passing thePress Act, you retardthe growth of a nation. It is not my own phrase. Itis quoted from English

File1-Tilak Trialworks. I wiU read to you one or two extracts to showyou that that is theview taken by constitutional writers. The first ofthese is from " TheScience of Politics ' by Amos. ( Reads at page 210down to ' out oflove. ' ) And here is another quotation fromErskine's address indefence of Payne.

* ' The proposition which I mean to maintain as thebasis of the Libertyof the Press, and without which it is an emptysound, is this: — That everyman, and not intending to mislead, but seeking toenlighten others withwhat his own reason and conscience, howevererroneously, have dictated"to him as truth, may address himself to theuniversal reason of a wholenation either upon the subject of governments ingeneral or upon that ofour own particular country ; — that he may analysethe principles of its-constitution, — point out its errors and defects,examine and publish itscorruptions, warn his fellow citizens against theirruinous consequences, —and exert his whole faculties in pointing the mostadvantageous changesin establishments which he considers to be radicUydefective or slidingfrom their object by abuse. All this, every subjectof this -country has

148

File1-Tilak Trial

a right to do, if he contemplates only what hethinks would be for itsadvantage, and but seeks to change the public mindby conviction whichflows from reasonings dictated by conscience."

This is not a statement based on my imagination butbased upon facts,and I will read to you a quotation from Malcolm's'Government of India'.

"A ver}- serious question arose regarding the NativePress over whichso far as I can judge Government has little or nocheck. The editors ofthese papers are well acquainted with their freedom. I desired to preventthe continued publication in a Native paper of thedisputes between Govern-ment and the Supreme Court and particularlytranslations into the Nativelanguage of some charges from the Bench which Ithought were calculatedto lower Government in the eyes of its Nativesubjects. " ( p. 137-38. )

Of course in certain msitters he does not take aliberal view.He wants certain Native Papers not to publish adecision ofj theHigh Court, as it was considered that it would bringthe Govern-ment into disgrace in the eyes of the people. Inthat case thePolice were criticised in a judgment by the DistrictJudge, and if theremarks were published the Police felt that it would

File1-Tilak Trialbring them into con-tempt, and the administration would suffer thereby.That was also theview of Mr. Elphinstone in those days. I have here abook published in1833, so that from that day there has been acomplaint made by the bu-reaucratic powers that the Press in India should becontrolled. You willfind a similar recommendation by Lord Curzon in hisrecent speech, andlyord Morley has referred to it. (Reads from LordMorley's Indian Budgetspeech ) That view is repudiated in Mr. Norton'sbook ' Topicsof Indian Statesmen.'^ (Reads from page 338 down to' in more need. ') If apress is needed anywhere it is more needed in Indiathan in England. SirHarvey Adamson stated in his speech in introducingthe Explosives andPress Bills that there are people who do not desireany Government of Lawor anything of the kind. That is how ; these peoplehave wrongly beendescribed. You will find in Karl Joubert's ' Fall ofCzardom ' at page 65.

"Nihilism has no creed, for it believes in nothing —no God, no law,no Government, no virtue, no love, an eternalnothing. It is the apotheosisof negation. No doubt there are in the worldfanatics of this descriptionagainst whom society has to protect itself; but weshould be cautious oflibelling any persons or groups of people anarchistsor nihilists, for if they

File1-Tilak Trialare actuated by political motives, or even byvengeance for wrongs doneto them, they cannot rightly be called eitheranarchists or nihiUsts, thoughthey may be guilty of crimes deserving ofpunishment.

Thousands of such men I have met in chains andmisery, yet I couldnot find one amongst them who did not love liberty,not one who wasagainst law and order, not one who did not desire awell-regulatedgovernment, x X X X .

Are these your Russians anarchists and nihihsts?These men who loveliberty and demanded an equal law and equal rightsfor all people; whoonly sought freedom to pursue their callingsunmolested, to educate thei'rchildern at their own expense, to read the Bible totheir families, to speaktheir mother-tongue, and to declare the truth asthey understood it ? _^^

149

You will see that exactly tlie same distinction ismade there that is madehere. And further on he gives the definition ofinsurrection. Exactly thesame statement which is made here is made in therecent work on theRussian Revolution. So you see that the words arenot used by me

File1-Tilak Trialfor the first tiire. (Reads to 'weapon of theanarchists' ) This simplymeans that the Bengalis are not anarchists ormurderers, f Reads to'desire'. J This should be 'aspirations.' (Reads to'resort to violence')The Pioneer has taken exactly the same view of thedisturbances inRussia in an article dated 29th August 1906 anextract from which I willread to you. f Vide Defence Exhibit 21 j. That isthe view which thePioneer took and the London Times also, and thissame view is reiteratedhere. It is not a new view of my own.

Advocate General: — What was the date of thatarticle ?Accused: — It is the Pioneer of the 29th August1906.

(Reads article down to 'wings') This should be'feathers' and not'wings'. (Reads to 'out of the cage') This isexactly the language used bymany authors to illustrate the poverty of India. Iwill read you such anextract from Torrens's 'Empire in Asia.'

' But communities denuded of native power,disspirited by disappoint-ment and drained for generations of theaccumulations of their industrycannot be expected to make such works forthemselves. We have brokenthe limbs of enterprise, and we must find it splintsand crutches. '

File1-Tilak TrialThen there is what Mr. Thorburn has said in the samestrain. Thissimply refers to the industries of the country whichare being killed in theinterests of England, not to actually breaking legsor limbs. (Reads to, 'savage'.) That should be 'stein'. (Reads to'disarm their subjects', jThere are also English writers and English statesmenwho have expressedthe same views. One of these is Sir Thoms Munro.(Reads) That is acomparison between the British rule and the ruleduring the Mogul Empire.We have again the same view expressd by Mr. A. K.Connell in his book,'Discontent and Danger in India' (Reads) That isalso an extract as youwill see when I read to you from Major Evans Bell'swork (Reads frompage 92 down to 'no ideal of making a home there.')I am just remindedthat I have omitted a pragraph and 1 will go back toit. It is this 'Thenwhy do the English commit the great sin ofcastrating a nation.' Thatis an utterly wrong translation. You will recollectI put to the translatorthe sentence.

The word I used was "manliness" but it has beentranslated intom'^i ^^"^ which means castrate. You will see fromthe extract that I readyou that the words should have been 'emasculation'and not 'Castration' ofthe Nation ( Read's from Sir PerOzeshah Metha'sspeech at the 4th

File1-Tilak TrialNational Congress in 1888 at page 283. 'the reasonwhy I support thisresolution' to 'by emasculating the whole nation.' JSo you see that"manliness" was intended by me and that manhood isnot the propertranslation. Manhood refers to function; manlinessrefers to quality. Now

150

I do not mean to suggest to you the idea that I readthese works at thetime I was writing the article. I have been readingthose books, I havebeen studying this literature and I have beenworking on these lines forthe past 28 years. I know the arguments that areadvanced on eachsubject. I do not say that when I wrote each passageof any article Ireferred to these works. No, I am familiar with theliterature of ourparty and I use the same arguments but in differentphraseology. [Readsdown to 'correct'] Now correct is a mistranslation.

His Lordship : — The word is corrected in ink to'covert' i'

Accused : — I accept that; 'covert aim,' means thatthere is someprincipal object in view. Merely ' aim ' would bequite enough. Itmeans that Government should by decentralisationtransfer some of

File1-Tilak Trialthe powers now in the hands of the Bureaucracy tothe popular assemblyor popular institutions by way of grantingself-Government by the methodof decentralisation. That was what I stated in myevidence before theDecentralisation Commission. (Reads Defence Exhibit56 B.) Those werethe views] I expressed on the 9th of March beforethe DecentralisationCommission. Similar views are expressed all throughthis article ofmine before you. What I mean to say is that somepower shouldbe transferred to the popular representatives. Thedate of the evidenceis 9th March and the date of the article is 9th June1908. (Reads fromarticle again down to ' heedlessly.') (Reads down to'up to time.') Thisis not an imaginaery case, it actually happened. Thereference is tD thecase of ' Hayagrivacharya ' whose house was enteredby the PlagueInspector, who went into that part where gods werekept.

Advocate General: — Is this admissible ?

His Lo?-dship: — It is irrelevent. Of course theaccused is appearingin person, and I do not wish to hamper him.

Advocate General: — He is only wasting the time ofthe Court and theJury. These are allegations which can be replied to.

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship: — This is a statement which you arenot entitled tomake. The Jury have heard you with the greatestindulgence. You areentitled to address the Jury as you like. You mayrefer to any matters youlike and to any books. But you cannot enter into anyfacts which mayrequire to be. contradicted.

Accttsed: — This is a case which appears in theDharwar "Plague Com-mission's Report. If necessary I will get thereport.

His Loi-dship: — I do not think it will help youmuch.Accused: — Then I will give it up.

Accused cojitinnes: — This says that the people weredriven to exaspe-ration. I will now read to you again from MajorEvans Bell's book ' OurGreat Vassal Empire { Reads from ' the politicaldiagnosis of India' downto ' 'at present. ' ) It is foreseen here what theconsequences would be ifthis Bureaucracy were carried too far. Then furtheron there is a passage

151

(Reads from ' if the British people ' down to 'beassociated.') Thequestion here is the same. It is not a question ofcontempt of Government,

File1-Tilak Trialit is a question with regard to civil authorities.ltis not a question of militaryauthority.lt does not mean that the bomb willredress the military authority.fReads down to 'mititary strength.') This is asentence which the learnedCounsel for the Prosecution said he could notunderstand. It refers to theintellectual, not to the material or visible thing,it is a knowledge, not aphysical fabric. The words in the original are^rt&percnt; ^^7 sff^^ ^, ^^^^T 'TTf r* It is a thing to be known, and when aman knows it, thenonly a few materials are necessary, and a bigmanufactory is not required.'The question is not one of materials but ofknowledge. I am referring tothe intellectual side. There are three words used,it is something likeaTspell, a charm, an amulet. ( Reads down to 'bigfactor^'.') We extractedthis statement from the evidence taken in Calcutta,and published in theTimes of India qvl 'Cn^ 8th May, which quoted theexpert opinion fromthe Empire. ( Reads from ' Times of India ' of 8thMay. J In thatway several opinions were given in the Anglo-IndianPress, some holdingthat the Explosives Act as it was passed was notenough, but that some-thing more was necessary to put a stop to the bomb,and bomb manu-factures, and that strong measures should be takento .subjugate and controtheir manufacturers. This was discussed in theAnglo-Indian papers and w

File1-Tilak Trialhave taken it from the Anglo-Indian papers as I haveread to you. Counsel fothe Crown says it is incitement ; that we areinciting the people by innuendoeto manufacture bombs. If I am responsible, why notthe Times of Indiaand the Anglo-Indian papers ? It is not a statementI have made. It istaken from the Anglo-Indian papers. Of course it maybe due te eagernessto give the first report. Can it be said that thepapers, which gave thedetails of the Muzafferpore outrage, were guilty ofthe crime of murder ?Every detail of the occurrence was published, wasthis an incite-ment to murder ? There are instances given ofpoisoning and other casespublished in the daily press. Thousands of suchcases. Would you callthese incitements to murder or to poisoning andwould you prosecute theEditors of the papers ? It is not that we aretelling the people to makebombs. That inference is attributed to us by theAnglo-Indian papers. Butit is they who have told the public how the bomb ismanufactured bypublishing the statement of the expert witnesses,who said that the ma-terials were there for a very well equipped factoryand the whole processhas been described by every Calcutta Anglo-Indianpaper.

Mr. Branson : — It is not true.

Accused : — Well, I have read to you the

File1-Tilak TrialAnglo-Indian papers, and alsothe views of English Statesman, so that you may seethat the views in thearticle are not my own. I have put in a copy of theOriental Reviewmarked Exhibit D 64, and you will find in the issueof July 1st 1908, anextract from the Calcutta correspondent of theJVIorning Leader, ( Beginsto read extract, j

Mr. Branson : — I am unwilling to interfere with theAccused excwhen it is absolutely necessary. He now wants toread something whis an extract from some English paper.

152

Accused : The letter is dated Calcutta 7th May andwas sect to Eng-land, and appeared in this paper on July 1st 1908.

His Lordship : It could not have reached you beforeyou wrote your

article.

ylcc2iscd:— That only shows the greater andindependent corrorboration.

Advocate General ;— It is absolutely irrelevent.Some person writes aletter which is uncorrorborated, and it appears in apaper which the Ac-cused wishes to use as evidence.

File1-Tilak Trial

Accused : — I hold it to be admissible as provingthat ^ sorne otherAnglo-Indian resident in Calcutta takes a similarview to mine in thiscontroversy.

His Lordship : — If the Accused thinks it is ofimportance to him Iwill let him use it.

Advocate- General : — As your Lordship pleases.

Accused : — (Reads article. fVide D 64. J

Advocate- General : — Mr. Tilak ought to have beenthankful to me forobjecting to him relating that article. If he makesit a part of his de-fence I doan't mind. It is evident that his viewsare those of the writer.The dynimiter has come to stay !

[ The Advocate General asks for the article andreads a portion of itto the Jury.]

His Lo?-dship to Accused :— What did you read thisarticle for ?

Accused : — To show that the opinion is that thebomb has come tostay and that it cannot be stopped by theserepressive measures.

His I^ordship :-YoM have not read it to show that itreflects your views?

File1-Tilak TrialAccused: — No, my Lord, I have read it ascorroborative of my viewsabout repressive measures.

His Lordship to the Jury; — I do not think that youought to beinfluenced bv that article. I take it the Accusedmerely reads it to .showwhat the writings were with regard to this fact atthe time.

Mr. Tilak continues: — Now, Gentlemen, these are theveryviews represented in the Viceregal LegislativeCouncil. C Gazette of\7idia dated June 13th 1908, Vide D 63. ) And theseremarks,Gentlemen, these remarks were made in the presenceof the Viceroyhimself. With this warning he supported the motionthinking itwas useless to oppose and to give a different vote.The date ofthe discussion is 8th June, and it is printed in theproceedings of theLegislative Council of 15th June. Now the passagewhich he has quotedI have also put in. I have here the ContemporaryReview fVide D 65 Jwhich gives the whole article. It is headed the'Ethics of Dynamite' andwas published in 1894. It is the article to whichreference was made in

153

File1-Tilak Trialthe speech I have just read you. There too theobservations are to thesame effect as the observations you find in myarticle, and also in thepreceding article. The question is whether it willstop it, or are furthermeasures necessary? In England and in India, thesame ^ viewshave been expressed, and the same thing has beensaid in myarticle of 9th June. Now it may be convenient forsome people todraw the conclusion that in criticising theExplosives Act we weretrying to incite the people to disaffection, hatredand contempt of theGovernment. The whole question to my mind is, dopersons throw thebomb, or the community ? Another question is whetherthe proposedrepressive measures will be sufficient, or whethersomething more willhave to be done. I have criticised this matter inthe '' Kesari'' in thesame way as it was done by the writers whom I havequoted to you on thesame arguments, the same conclusions. Not only this,but the wholeIndian press has expressed the same views. I canonly guess atwhat the Prosecution intended. I have been ratherinconveniencedby these articles being put together in the jointcharge. Thesetwo acts have been objected to by all the organs ofthe Indian reformparty. That is not my opinion alone, it is theopinion of every one of the

File1-Tilak Trialpapers. The object of the writer was to remark uponthe Explosives Act.That Act has been passed, and has become law; butalthough the lawhas been passed there is no reason why one of usshould not write tosay that this Act will not do good, will not bebeneficial to the people, itsprovisions should not have been what they are, andthat it should havebeen framed on different lines and in a differentspirit altogether. It isperfectly legitimate to do this in discussing thematter and to set forth thesefacts. I have Supported my arguments from variousauthorities just asMr. Syed Mahomed has taken the article from the '¦Co7iie7nporary Review'^to put in his speech. I have shown you from thevarious extrcts that allarguments are the same, and it is for you to judgewhether it was intendedas suggested by the Prosecution, as a veiled attemptto excite peopleto throw bombs, or whether it was written in theinterests of the people.

It will be for you to judge from the words of thearticle whetherit was intended as a protest or as an attempt to sowthe seeds of dis-affection. The Prosecution says it is a veiledattempt to incite people tothrow bombs. I say such an inference does notfollow, and if you wereto apply this maxim every account published in news— papers regardinga crime will be looked upon as an incitement to

File1-Tilak Trialpeople to commit crimes.Crime is not the normal state of society; it is anunnatural tendency.People do not become criminals by reading accountsof crimes; and if itis held that they do, then journalists will have togive up their job.Suppose a man publishes accounts of the Mutiny of1857, the Governmentwill not suspect anything wrong if he is a member ofthe Anglo-Indianpress; but if we do it should it be an act ofincitement to sedition ? Thevery day this was published at Poona the same thingwas said in theViceroy's Council. That shows the trend of publicopinion as expressedin the public papers. This is not a veiled attempt.Had it been so therewould have been only an isolated article. The wholething is nothingelse but a controversy from the beginning to theend. The Hon. Nawab

151

Syed Mahomed has taken the same view when speakingin the ViceregalCouncil, as also other newspapers. Then what reasonis there to supposethat I alone am actuated by criminal motives, whilethe others wrote ingood faith ?

I have put in Ex. 68, 69, 70, 48 B, 44, 45, 46 and47 (The

File1-Tilak TrialSuhodha Patrika^ the Sudharaky the Dnyan Frakash^the hiditPrakash 5th and 6th May, and the Gujarati 31st Mayand 14thJune ) . These papers do not belong to the party ofreform to which Ibelong though they are pro-Congress papers. Any onewho doubts mystatement may satisfy himself by reading them to seeif the same thing hasnot been said by other papers, whether they areMarathi, or Gujrati orAnglo-Vernacular. It is the general view of all theparties not only inthe Maharashtra but throughout the country thatthese repressive meas-ures will be useless and that something more isnecessary. I have alsoread to you the views of the Secretary of State. Buteven if my view wastotally disapproved, I was entitled to bring it tothe attention of Govern-ment. It was not totally disapproved by Government,and Lord Morleyhas considered it necessary to introduce somemeasures of reform far moreadvanced than he originally intended. The other dayLord Curzon spokeabout the Amir of Cabul in the House of Lords, andLord Morley de-precated the language used by him as he thought thatit was likely tocreate irritation. But he never thought ofprosecuting Lord Curzon forexciting the Amir against the Government of India.You cannot chargethe Hon. Nawab Syed Mahomed with the intention ofcreating disaffection

File1-Tilak Trialor exciting disaffection. It was his duty as amember of the Council toexpress his views. In the same manner it was my dutyto give my opin-ion freely as a journalist. This is not my opiniononly, but it is theopinion of the whole Indian Reform Party ; and if inexpressing that opin-ion words are used which may be presumed to denotean attempt to ex-cite disaffection according to a certain legalfiction, I ask you not to takethat into your consideration. [Reads Ex. I. articleof 9th June, 'Englishrule is admittedly alien.'] It has been shown thattaxation in this countryhas affected the prosperity of British India, and itis out of all proportionto the taxation in Great Britain. I may be right orwrong. The questionis whether I have a right to say it or not. TheAnglo-Indian press hasbeen openly saying that they do not want concessionsto be given to thepeople. On the other hand we say that the agitationis due to the faultysystem of administration and it can be stopped onlyby granting conces-sions to the people and not by repressive measures.It is a question ofliberty of the press — it is not a question of anindividual. The questionis whether, when a repressive Act is passed, thepeople are entitled ornot to express their views frankly and openly. Ifsuch language is opento misconstruction, I should like to know what isnot likely to be mis-

File1-Tilak Trialunderstood. I have quoted the case of Zenger on thispoint to show thatjudged from such a narrow stand-point, there isnothing in the world, —not even the words in the Bible — safe frommisconstruction being putupon it. Therefore, what you have to look to is thespirit in which thecontroversy is carried on.

155

Now, I shall refer to the card, (K) which is put inby the Prosecu-tion. That card has been found in the search. TheProsecution think itof such importance that they have photographed itand I shall be muchsurprised if it is not sent home for the inspectionof lyord Morley. Thehistory of that card is something like this.

His Lordship : — I have not seen the photograph ; itis not anexhibit.

Accused : — We have been supplied with a photograph.Of course,the insinuation to be drawn from the card is that Iwas engaged in manu-facturing bombs or some explosives, and that is thereason why the namesof these books appear in the card ! It was foundalong with some otherpapers in the search in the drawer of my writingtable — a drawer which

File1-Tilak Trialwas not locked up. It was found with other papers. Ihaveput in those papers in order that you may judge ofthecharacter of the other papers that were found alongwith it and thepurpose for which it was written and to show whetherthey were papersof ordinary daily business or whether it was kept insome other part of thedrawer. That was the reason why I questioned thePolice ^ Officer andremarked that the card was found behind my back.This card wasfound among daily papers of business and not in somenook and cornerwhere it could not be discovered by any one. I havetold you that afterI wrote this article we wanted to criticise indetail the provisions of.the Explosives Act and especially the definition ofan explosive,which according to the Act, includes even ordinarykerosine oil. It wasnecessary to collect materials to see whether thedefinition given in^ theExplosives Act tallies with the definition given inthe works on explosives.The only reference book we had there wasEncyclopedia Britannica andthat was not enough and naturally the first implusewas to refer to thecatalogue to see whether there was any work onexplosives. If you willsee the card you will find that there is one portionscratched andthe names are rewritten with the prices. Here is thecatalogue to

File1-Tilak Trialto which I referred. It is a book which we can haveanywhere.^ It isa yearly publication, but I do not purchase it everyyear. Now, in thatcard the name 'Modern Explosives' is an abbreviatedname, and the otheris found in the general index. My Lord, this may beinspected by theJury. This is the general index. (Accused hands upCatalogue ofCatalogues Vols: 1 & 2, 1902 Edition.) You will findthese two names,first under the heading 'Explosives, Modern, byEisler' and the nameof the catalogue in which it is to be found. On page34 the book inquestion is referred to , I have marked it with redpencil. If you willlook at the card you will find there the title.Crosby is the nameof the publisher. In the general index a particularcatalogue is referredto and there you have the full name.

This was described as a folding card. But it wasreally anordinary card and was folded subsequently. It wasnot intended to besent to any body. I asked Mr. Sullivan if he went tomy library and made asearch there, as the catalogue was there. He said'No,' he found thecard in the drawer. He thought that enough and thecard

156

File1-Tilak Trial

was carried away as a trophy of the search.Insinuationsand innuendoes will be made before you in connectionwith this card,and I would, therefore, draw your attention to theorder in which thesetwo books appeared in the general catalogue. Theyare in the same order.'Modern Explosives' is mentioned first and thenfollows 'Nitro-Explosive';subjoined to these names are the prices, and thenames of the authors andpublishers.

Now, the papers foundalong with the card are themostordinary papers.There is a letter from a gentleman asking as to howhe should establisha school ; then there is an abstract from an opinionon my book onthe 'Arctic Home in the Vedas.' Also two long — handreports of myspeech at Surat. I ask you to judge of the card inconnection with thesepapers. The scratched portion is taken from thegeneral index and theother portion from the general catalogue. I do notknow with whatobject the Prosecution have put in the card. Itmeans nothing. If theymean to say that there is something hidden in it —something ulterior-there is nothing to support the suspicion, becausethe card was amongother papers which were placed in an open drawer. Ifit is suggestedthat the card was purposely placed among these

File1-Tilak Trialpapers and the drawerpurposely left open so as not to attract suspicion,then I say that if youare to suspect in that way there will be no end tosuspicions. In thatway, the fact that the catalogue was in the librarymight also be lookedupon with suspicion. In short, I do not see whatconnection this cardhas with the whole case and how you can rely uponit. As I have alreadyexplained we were then engaged in commenting uponthe Explosives Actand as a matter of fact the detailed provisions otthe Act were criticisedin the ' Kesari' of the 16th June. (Vide D. 66) Theheading of thearticle is * A couple of New Acts ' or the ' TwinActs.' In that articletlip^ . detailed provisions of the Explosives Acthave beencriticised and referred to. The definition ofexplosives isgiven at some length. The whole of the third columnand fourthcolumn ^ criticises the definition of the Act, andthe lastcolumn is devoted to comments on the Press Act. Thedefinition ofthe Explosives Act has here been compared with thedefinition of theEnglish Act of 1883.

[At this stage the court adjourned for lunch.]

His Lordship \ — Can you give me any idea as to howlong you willtake ?

File1-Tilak Trial

Accused : — I think I will finish this evening. AndI think if Yourlyordship will give me 15 or 20 minutes to-morrow Ican finish.

Hzs Lordship : — Otherwise you have finished.

Accused : — Yes^ My L,ord. —•

lAFTER TIFFIN.']

I now come to the third charge. I do not know howthe same articlecan. legally be put in under two sections. lam not,just now, goingto discuss the effect of having the same articleplaced under two sections.

157

Whether the charges are ciimulative or alternativeaud whether a man can

be punished cumulatively under the two sections, isanother matter. I will

read to you the sections and explain what they meanand you will then

be able to say whether the writing comes under thesetwo sections ( Reads

section 153 A.) Now the section provides ' whoeverpromotes or attempts

File1-Tilak Trialto promote ' . The wording of the section appears tome to be ver^^ faulty

or defective. Promoting evidently does not mean aparticular effect. It

is inclusive and of course it comes too much intoconformity with the words

above. I think that ' promotes ' there is notintended as separate. The

latter wording is 'attempts to promote.' It is thesame kind of wording

as in Section 124 A 'excites or attempts to excite'— ''promotes or attempts

to promote." As I have explained in the case ofSection 124 A it seems

to me that for the word "promotes" in the first partno intention is needed,

while imder the latter part of the sectionparticular intention and object are

included. As I explained then, no attempt can be anaimless attempt, the

very word shows that something is aimed at. I throwa stone at random;

it is not attempting anything. It is only throwing astone and you may say

my intention is to throw a stone. But when I throw astone at the "University

File1-Tilak Trial

Clock, I may miss it as it is too high to hit — butif it can be shown from

other circumstances that I throw it with that objectit is attempting it. My

idea of attempt is that something must be aimed at.There cannot be as I

have said an aimless attempt and here the attempt isto promote feelings

of enmity. Like attempting to excite disaffection itrequires intention and

motive, both. You cannot conceive of an aimlessattempt. There is no

attempt without some end in view without a crime oraction being kept in

view. Well, if you have something else in view andsomething occurs

which was not likely, that is not covered by thisSection.

There is only one case I can find on that point. Itis reported in thePunjab Weekly Reporter No. 14, Aplil 1907. It is thecase of the proprietoroi the Pitji fad iin appeal. This was an appeal fromthe decision of theMagistrate to the Punjab High Court. It was nottried by a Jur^-. Therethe Judges were judges of Law and fact. That is theonly case I find reported

File1-Tilak Trialunder Section 153 A. The Chief Justice there seemsto interpret the word'promote' to also mean intention, and takes it alongwith the word intention.I will read you his words. ( Reads from PunjabWeekly Reporter No. 14April 1907 from ' promotes' to 'effect.' J

Hi's Lordship: — May I see that case ?

[ Accused hands up the book and after His Lordshiphas read it hehands it back.]

And so the Punjab Judges have held that the phrase 'promotes orattempts to promote feelings of enmity or hatred 'here includes consciousintention as well as promotion. It is not to beinferred merely from thearticles, it must be inferred from othercircumstances. It is just like theword excite in section 124 A. Here it is between 'different classes of hisMajesty's subjects.' What is to be inferred fromthis word 'classes.'?Can it mean two political classes ? I venture to saythat it cannot mean twopolitical parties, or classes which are based ondifferent principles. It may

158

mean Hindus and Mahomedans. It may mean as has beenheld betweenEuropeans and Indians. But the distinction cannot be

File1-Tilak Trialbetween twopolitical parties. They are not called classes. Theyare called parties. It maymean Armenians and Catholics, Protestants and Jewsbut it cannot meanConser\^atives and Liberals. As regards the'question of His Majesty'ssubjects, it has been held to mean Europeans andNatives or Indians.Classes which have a prominent mark of distinctionare to be regarded asdifferent classes of His Majesty's subjects. But Icontend that this cannot betaken to mean a distinction or division intopolitical parties so far as the objectof this section is concerned. Thus we have theexplanation [ Reads ' it doesnot amount ' down to ' intention ] That phrase againshows thatmalicious intention is intended by the word 'promotes or attempts topromote. '[Reads downjto 'subjects.'] Again the wordused is^ classes. ' More or less in this section it isintended thatfeelings may not be roused between different classesor communities,that they may not act one against another. Thatseems to be the object ofthis section. Now in the one I pointed out it showsthat some kind of cri-minal attempt is necessary to prove a case underthis section and it is alsoheld that without actual criminal intent somethingmay be said, or written,anything of that kind may be done with the object ofmiminising differencesor pointing out defects . Suppose I wrote a book

File1-Tilak Trialpointing out the differencesbetween the Hindus and Mahomedans saying who I thinkis in the right.That would not come under the section ! As I haveexplained maliciousintention does not come in here. As in the case ofSection 124A. it is madeclear in the explanation . So long as it is merelyan explanation, merelyintended to explain the words in the firstparagraph, the burden is on theProsecution to show that the case is not covered bythis explanation.

His Lordship : — I have had the case to which youreferred brought up.I see it is Punjab High Court Records Vol. 42, 23rdSeptember.

Acaised continuing said : — So in the first placewhat I want to show isthat there are no classes mentioned in the article .A whole page of that articleis full of criticisms on the Explosives Act and thePress Act. It could onlybe contended remotely by straining the words that incrticising theprovisions of the Explosives Act it was intended toincite persons to throwbombs at the other community. I do not think thatmeaning could beput upon that article.

It is further doubtful whether Bureaucracy comes inthe words of thissection as a class of His Majesty's subjects. I amcharged under section153 A in regard to the second article. Which classes

File1-Tilak Trialit does not say and I donot know whether it means between Europeans orNatives or betweenother classes.

His Loj-dship : — Let me see the charge.

Accused : — I do not think the classes arementioned. They are not inthe copy I received.

His Lordship : — I see that the words are asfollows. 'By printed wordspromoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmityand hatred betweenclasses of his Majesty's subjects.'

159

Accused : — That is all ; the classes are notspecified.

Hz's Lordship: — No, the classes are not specified.

Accused: — So, I am labouring under disadvantage. Icannot say whetherit is between Europeans or whether it is betweenHindus and Mahomedans orbetween Jains and Sikhs. Of course if I mention someparticular class now theProsecution may take up some other class afterwards. Some one is responsiblefor having made the charge defective. I presumeEuropeans and Nativesare intended. But that defect in the charge, I wouldask your lyordship

File1-Tilak Trialto make a note of as it places me at greatdisadvantage in answering it and thecharge must fail. The article was not intended topromote enmity or hatredbetween the classes, and it was a criticism upon thePress and Ex-plosives Acts. The innuendo that is likely to bedrawn from the words is; 'here itis ; you promote or excite the people by saying thatbombs can be easily made&c . . If you comment upon a particular thing youare bound to give not onlyyour own views, but reasons in support of that view,and when you give thosereasons you cannot be construed into meaningsomething else. The objectis clear that I was commenting upon particularsections of these two acts.The aim and object is plainly before you, so theremust be some evidenceplaced before the Jury to prove that my obiect wasquite different. Manyhypothetical cases might be put to you, likely orunlikely. Nothing is un-likely, just as in Napoleon's Dictionary, nothingwas impossible. But we haveto see what is the natural construction to be putupon it. Then again thesame article has been made the basis of a chargeunder Section 124 A.Apart from the legal technicality it appears to meto be something like thisA guest comes to me and I present liim ivith a dishof food^ the emptydish I present to another guest ! ! The same wordsare made to supporttwo offences. We know that in Mathematics a stonecan kill two birds at

File1-Tilak Trialone time, if it has got sufficient velocity, but Idid not know that one setof words could be charged under two Sections . Thatis why I wanted theprosecution to specify the words charged under 124 Aand the words chargedunder 153 A.

This third charge is not only vague and defective,but Section 153A., Imaintain, is not applicable to that article. Thewords are not mentioned,the classes are not mentioned, the bureaucracycannot be a class underthis section. On the point of law particularly,there is nothing to supportthe charge regarding this article.

Then, my Lord, I would like to refer to somesections of theC. P. C. I beg your L^ordship's attention tosections 298, and 299, ofthe C. P. C. on the duties of the Judge and theduties of the Jury.I stated in the beginning in explaining section124A. the Englishlaw on the subject. The jury may have the help ofthe legal maxim that" every man intends the consequences of his act,'but it is their duty alsoto examine all the surrounding circumstances. Thathas been the lawsince 1792. Now the practice in England ever sincehas been to leave thewhole question to the Jury. In fact that was thereform effected, andthat reform substantially effected the liberty ofthe press in England. The

File1-Tilak TrialJudge has to give the law, and the Jury hae to takethe surrounding

160

circumstances into' consideration and return averdict on the facts. TheIndian law is based on Enghsh law, and especially onthe original side ofthe High Court. And the practice has been to leavethe whole thing tothe Jur}'. If your Lordship refers to section 298and 299, you will findthat the duties of Judge and Jury are clearlydefined. Of course it isperfectly within the discretion of your Lordship togi\-e any direction ornot. The Judge may give his opinion or may not givehis opinion. NowI wiU read the duties of the Jur\-. ^^

(a) to decide which \-iew of the facts is true andthen to return theverdict which under such \iew ought, according tothe direction of theJudge, to be returned.

(3) to determine the meaning of all teachnical terms( other thanterms of law ) and words used in an unusual sensewhich it may be neces-sary to determine, whether such words occur indocuments or not;

(c) to decide all questions which according to laware to be deemed

File1-Tilak Trialquestions of fact;

(d) to decide whether general indefinite expressionsdo or do notapply to particular cases unless such expressionsrefer to legal procedure orunless their meaning is ascertained by law, ineither of which cases it is theduty of the Judge to decide their meaning.

It is the same as in Fox's Libel Act. The secondillustrationI have read to you shows that the considerationsinclude motive,and intention and mental state. These are mattersfor theJury to consider. They are left entirely to them.The Jury is not to accept in-ference. They are to take all the surroundingcircumstances into considera-tion. Of course so far as I can say there has notbeen a case where so mau)--surrounding circumstances have influenced the case.The Jury is not todepend upon the words and the inference drawn fromthe legal fiction.Then there is the direction of the Chief Justice,Sir Lawrence Jenkins, inthe case Empress-vs-Luxman, reported in Vol. II,Bombay Law Reporter1900. I hope your Lordship will be pleased to directthem accordingly. Isit a question of pure law, or law and fact? The Jurymust take into accountall the surrounding circumstances the time, place&;c. Now in cases whichwere decided in 1900 none of the surroimdingcircumstances was

File1-Tilak Trialtaken into account. It may have been due to the factthat they were notexplained, that they were not considered by theJury. I maintain thatif those circumstances are explained the Jurj- isbound to take theminto consideration. I maintain that the word 'intention ' is more com-prehensive than the word 'attempt.' The ChiefJustice here says 'youhave to say whether it is an attempt or not ' Afterthat you may use thelegal maxim that ever^- man intends the consequencesof his acts, but ifyou wish to prove intention other circumstances mustbe taken intoconsideration. Then as regards the controversy Iclaim the right ofprivate defence. Of course this does not come quiteunder the provisionsof the I. P. C . Has or has not a man any right ofprivate defencein libel, or his only remedy is to go to a court oflaw, and if he

161

caunot go to a court of law is there no other remedy? lu the present casegomg to a court of law depends upon the Government.Does it meanthat the Anglo-Indian press has a licence to abusethe native press ? I don'tthink that it can be contended for a moment that isthe state of thelaw at present. Speaking of the right of private

File1-Tilak Trialdefence against propertyI would only say that property includes reputation.It would be verystrange to say that a man has no right to defend hisreputation, and thereputation of his party ; to say that would meanthat a man cannot prosecuteanother man for defamation. Reputation is considereda valuable property.Taking the case in that light, if certain newspaperscharge me with badmotives, and they say that certain individuals oughtto be whipped bysweepers in the public street there is surely someright, I maintain a legalright. There can be no question about it that a manmust have someTight to defend himself and his party. The mattermay not go to thelength of challenging another to a duel, but theright must extendto some length, and that length must extend todefending oneselfand one's party in a newspaper. Anything said inself-defence doesnot come under the I. P. C. Then I would like to saya few words, My L,ord,about the liberty of the press. It is said that itis given by the explanationof section 124A. But the word ' attempt ' leaves awide margin, and Idon't think that the use of the word ' attempt 'there is intended to showthat there is only a legal inference,, and if you donot go beyond that youare protected. English law is that the wholequestion is left to the Jury, andif the intention is to be inferred from the act

File1-Tilak Trialalone then the right is veryrestricted. Any word you write may be interpreted inany way. Youmay have no criminal mind and you may be punishedfor it. Now I willread to you what is stated by Stephens in his workon Criminal Law(Reads from Page 348 Vol. 2 )

* That the practical enforcement of this doctrinewas wholly inconsis-tent with any serious public discussion of politicalaffairs is obvious, and solong as it was recognised as the law of the land, aUsuch discussion existedonly on sufference, '

You could only beg, you could not claim as a right JPolitical discussionor conroversy could be carried on only on thesufference of Government.

So in all the three cases decided by this High Courtthe judges havegiven the direction to the Jury that a certainamount of liberty is allowedto the Press in this [coimtry. In England thequestion of inference andintention is left to the Jury. I contend thatspeaking from thelegal point of view the only way in which theliberty of the press can bedefended is by leaving the whole question entirelyto the Jury as a safe-guard to the Hberty of the press. There is nodefinition except what wefind in the explanation of the wording of Section124 A. Even in these

File1-Tilak Trialcases the question is left to the Jury; so we arriveat the same result as inEngland. I do not mean that English law is to beapplied here. Indianlaw is codified but we can interpret it with thehelp of the English lawwhich forms the basis of the Indian law. If the actis committed we can• arrive at the intention of the act. The purposefor which these words were

162

uttered cannot be inferred from the mere fact thatthese words were utteredor published. Now there is one more point we have toconsider ; whetherany effect has been produced on the community. It issaid that it does notmatter whether any effect is produced upon thecommunity, because anattempt must necessarily always be unsuccessful. Isay that is not acorrect view of the matter. You may take an articlewritten in the Kesarttwo years ago . Is not the factor of time materialthere ? The article hasbeen before the public for two years ; what effecthas it produced ? Timeis an important matter in deciding whether it is anattempt or not. I donot say very great importance or value must beattached to it, but it wouldnot be right to attach no value to it. I will readonly one passage to showthat it was not the intention of the writer to

File1-Tilak Trialexcite feelings of enmity andhatred. It may be said that I should have referredto the good work theBureaucracy had been doing. I will refer to Erskineto show that that sortof argument was used in the case of L/ambert andPerr}- in 1793. (Readsfrom Vol. 1 page 213 of Erskine 's speeches from 'Mr. Attorney General ' to-' the constitution. ' ) Those are minor points but Ianswer them in ex-plaining as there is no right of reply. I have notcited English law herewith the wish that it slioiild be used here insteadof the Indian law. Butthe consideration of the English law is veryimportant in the interpretationof the Indian law. In fact it has been very' oftensaid that Indian law is thesame as English law and that we have in India thesame liberty of the Pressas is enjoyed in England and that Indian Editors maywrite with as muchfreedom as is enjoyed by English Editors. Stephensin his work saysC Reads from ' now proposed ' to ' hamper. ' ) andagain in Mr. Chow-dhari's book in the Appendix page 8 the followingoccurs ( Reads ' pale oflaw, ' down to ' violent, personal or unfair. ' )The w^hole question is one ofcriminal intention. It may be violent or unfair butit must be written withcriminal intention ; some words may be stronger thanthe occasion de-mands, it may even be vehement but that does notmatter. There can beno sedition without criminal intent and that intent

File1-Tilak Trialis to be inferred fromthe surrounding circumstances. Then again it mightbe urged by the Pro-secution that when it is alleged that it is acontroversy as to a certainextent, I attempt to plead justification. That isnot what is meant and Imust clear myself on that point. We are not pleadingjustifica-tion but say that there is no seditious Intention atall. Lastlyit is likely that the old argument of lighting acigar in a powdermagazine may be urged. There is no evidence herethat these articleswere read in Bengal. I simply give expression to theview of the public;giving expression is a different thing from incitingunrest. I do not want totr^- your patience, Gentlemen of Jur\-, but if youlike you may refer tothose newpapers. I cannot be taken to task, for somay writers expressingthe same thing in different words. Therp may be somedifferences ofopinion. One man may agree in 10 points, another in12 and still anotherin 45 points. It is a controversy. One section ofthe PubHc Press advocatingthe cause of the Bureaucracy and supporting them andtheir measures andanother section of the Press supporting theBureaucracy and at the sametime condemning all these measures. The controversyhas not beenprovoked or created by us. The bomb-outrages giverise to the controversy

File1-Tilak Trial

163

as being a topic of the day. Every newspaper writerwas bound to expresshis opinion on it. Having allowed one section of thePress to express anopinion on the fact it was only fair that the othersection of the pressshould have a similar liberty. The whole point inthe case is this. Replieswere necessary from week to week to the pointsraised in the controversy,which was due to the repressive policy ofGovernment. By using innuendoesand insinuations this cannot be interpreted intomeaning some thing different.1 read one more passage which shows how intention isconsidered and howit is very delicate to infer a particular intentionin a man from any parti-cular act. I am going to read a case pubHshed inHansard's Parliamentar)-Debates 1884. It is a case like that of Reg. V.Binns which was quotedpreviously. In this case Lord Salisbury took Mr.Chamberlain to task forhaving said that 100,000 men would march to London.His Lordshipsaid that it was an incitement to violence and thatMr. Chamberlain ought tohave been brought before a magistrate and tried(Reads from Hansard page643 j. It is the same thing in the case Reg. V.Binus reported in 26State Trials page 595. When a man is speaking orwriting in \iew of the

File1-Tilak TrialpubUc it is impossible for him to weigh all hiswords with that calmness withw^hich they are weighed by the lawyer or the judge.We have to write orspeak on the spur of the moment. We cannot w^eighour words; we usewords, occasionally words which we too would not useupon deliberation.Gentlemen of the Jurj-, you ought to take intoconsideration this fact incoming to a conclusion as to the criminal intentionin this case. It is due tothe fact that sedition cases are left to the Jurythat those cases are so rarenow in England. They have a popular form ofgovernment in England,they know how to deal with Judges there. And so ifintention is not provedby the incriminating articles the other articlescannot be used to prove orsupplement the proof or supply the deficiency ofproof in the incriminatingarticles. If what is in the articles is seditious itdoes not need the otherarticles to prove it. If the first article does notshow intention, then thesecond cannot be used. If it is sedition it does notrequire extracts, to proveintention taken from here and there. That is why Iobjectedto these articles going in at the beginning and Iquoted a passage fromMr. Mayne where he takes the same view. It is on thelast Kesari casethat he makes these remarks. ( Reads from Mayne'sCriminal Law page552, 3rd Edition up to ' into consideration.' J Hetakes much the same \dew

File1-Tilak Trialas I have placed before you here, namely, that ifthe articles are notseditious you cannot make them seditious by puttingin other articles.

Then I wish to say something about the translations; and this is thelast point I will refer to. I have pointed out themistakes in these trans-lations. There are minor errors here and there whichI do not insist upon.When reliance is placed upon particular words suchas ' tyrannical ' or' despotic ' then the question really comes in , Iwill read here to you fromLewis on the use and abuse of political terms. (Reads from Chapter 3. )Oppression, tyranny and despotism are confoundedthere and have adistinctly different meaning in writings on poHticalscience.There has been that kind of confusion in thetranslations to which I object.I admit that the idioms of one language cannot bethe same as those ofanother. I woiild like to point out that thetranslator was not placed in the

164

witness box but someone else ; and he was asked tovoucb for tlie correct-ness of the translation. Of course it is an officialtranslation and thereforethere is a certain presumption of correctness inthat ; but where particular

File1-Tilak Trialpassages were pointed out as wrong the realtranslator ought to havebeen placed in the witness box. The charge is basednot upon the originalMarathi but upon the translation. It should havebeen based upon theorio"inal Marathi article and then the translationsought to have been put in.It mav be said that the defence has not produced itsown translation. Thatis a burden v/hich the defence can not be made tobear. It is for the Proseu-tion to prove that the translation is correct. Herethe charge is based onthe Eno-lish translation and not on the originalMarathi article. Supposingthis was an EngUsh article and supposing anEnglishman were charged withsedition the charge would fail if the prosecutionproceeded on a documentin which, it was proved, different words to thosewrritten were inserted. Herethere are differences between the original words inMarathi in theKesari and the words used in the translations.

Advocate General : — If Mr. Tilak would be a littlecorrect, I mighthave a few minutes. The charges are based upon theMarathi articles astranslated. He may be a little correct even in smallmatters.

Accused : — ^The Marathi article in the original andthe Marathi articleas translated are two different things ; the chargeis based upon the English

File1-Tilak Trialtranslation of these articles and if thesetranslations are not correct the chargemust fall through. The charges ought to have beenbased on the Marathiarticles. I have shown that the translations arewrong in my cross-examinationof Mr. Joshi. It may be the practice hitherto tobase a charge on translationsbut I have never heard before that translations wereso grossly incorrect . Theeffect is to be judged on the Marathi-speakingcommunity. There is no

1 evidence before your Lordship or the Jury as towhat has been theeffect on the Marathi-speaking community. It is verylikely that Governmenthas o^iven sanction on the translations and not onthe original articles.Therefore the Prosecution must stand or fall by thecorrectness orincorrectness of those translations. If the effectis to be judged on theMarathi-speaking people it must be of the originalwords. You cannotjudge as to what stage of political education theyhave advanced. We have

1 been in close touch with the Marathi community. Weknow what political

' views they hold and what their prejudices are andhow these articles arelikely to affect them. To convince the Jury of theeffect, some evidence shouldbe produced as to the state of that community. Ofcourse in Bombay you saythat the Marathi-speaking people are an ignorant

File1-Tilak Trialcommunity. Take thesearticles and you will see that it needs someintelligence to read and understandthem. You must see the effect on the minds of thereaders. That has beenexpressly admitted in the last Kesari case and alsoin the Bhala case,Poona is the centre of political activity. We havehad the SarvajanikSabha there and from the time of Justice Ranadethese doctrines have beenpreached. It has been so for the last 25 or 30years. A community like thatcannot be supposed to be an ignorant community ; andyou must see whateffect my words may produce upon an educated public.It is for you tojudge what effect the articles are likely to have onthe Marathi-speaking

165

community. I hope your Lordship will devote yourattention to this andtake it into your Ivordship's consideration. I havenearly finished but Iwould like to look at my notes to see if I have leftany points.

[ The Court was adjourned tiU Wednesday. ]

EIGHTH DAY.

File1-Tilak Trial

Wednesday 22nd July,

' Mr. Tilak resumed his address at 11-30 a.m.

He said: — I have only, in support of what I saidyesterday evening,to bring to your Lordship's notice Sections 294, 663and 708 of Mayne'sCriminal Law, 3rd Edition. I would like to readcertain portions of them.Section 294 deals with the word intention in 124 Aand it states. (Readsfrom ' but I add ' to 'circumstances' ).

That means in presuming intention from the words theJur>^ must take

into account all the other circumstances. I am onlyreferring you to the

authorities. Of course I have dealt with thisquestion myself before. Section

663 is about the charges; it reads ( Reads from 663down to ' no meaning ' .j

What I say, as I have brought it to your Lordship'snotice, is that the

charges are based on the translations ; and even ifthey were based on the articles

the Crown is bound by the interpretation they put onthe originals. Section

File1-Tilak Trial708 says (Reads 708 from 'foregoing remarks' down to'criminal intent.')

These are the three sections which I say are insupport of what I said last

evening and which I wish to bring to your Lordship'snotice. I have done

now with my defence and my first duty is to thankyou, Gentlemen of the

Jury, for the indulgence you were kind enough toshow me in listening to me

for so many days. I was placed at a disadvantage bythe vagueness of the

charges. I did not wish to detain you so long but Iwas bound to do so in

my own interest and in the interest of the causewhich I represent. Of course

I have taxed your patience. If I have done so, morethan was necessary in your

opinion, you will excuse me. The last word in such aprosecution is not with

the Prosecution but with his Lordship; and, as I amconfident, that word will

be impartial. I have taken a course which has notformerly been taken. I

must also express my thanks to the Prosecution. Iknew that in undertaking

File1-Tilak Trial

to defend the case myself I would have to put upwith interruptions as the

law allows and I may have been interrupted on anumber of occasions ;

for as you know when a layman defends himself he isbound to make

mistakes. I have to thank the Advocate General forthe kindness and

courtesy with which he has treated me. I do notpossess his learning and

abiUty and so I can only place my case before theJur>' from a personal and

common sense point of view. That is my only excusefor addressing you

personally. But I ran some risks and one was that Imight be interrupted

and then it would have been dij0Bcult for me to goon. If the learned

Advocate General had taken that course I should havebeen in a difficulty.

I have had to make some remarks about theProsecution ; but that is a

166

File1-Tilak Trialdifferent question from the other question, that isthe courtesy with whichhe has treated me . I should have Hked to haveavailed myself of his learning ;but I think I am expressing the opinion of everyone,not only here butoutside the Court, that for the first time I findhim in a wrong place. Andnow, Genlemen, once more I thank you for thepatience with which youhave heard me. The case is very clear and if I haveput it to you ratherbluntly it is because I am not used to forensictactics. I have not delayedyou intentionally. You have the articles before youand as I told you thesearticles have been written in the course of acontroversy whichis an old one — a struggle between the Bureaucracyand thepeople of this country. Here is a book in my hand.It gives proceedings ofthe Sarvajanik Sabha and the East India Associationin the time of the lateRao Sahib Mandlik &c. From all these you will findthat this controversyhas been going on ever since the year 1860. It is anold controversy and Iread to you a few extracts from the literature ofthe reform party to show thatwhat I have said in my articles is not new and thatthere is nothing in themto excite feelings against the Government. If thereis anythingin it it is merelyexpressions of our views. I do not accept blindly aUthe opinions whichare constantly placed before me. I do not mean tosay that whenever I

File1-Tilak Trialquote a book I feel every sentiment and accept everyargument statedtherein. In quoting them I wanted only to show thatthe controversy is nota new one and that it has been carried on for thepast 30 or 40 years andthat I am not entirely responsible for the viewsexpressed in my articles.The Bureaucracy is not the Government. It is likelyto be urged ' takeaway the Bureaucracy and what hope is left ?' Thecorrect way for a BritishColony is not to be governed by a Bureaucracy; thereare other ways.As Professor Amos says in his book on Politics — : —-

"Nevertheless the case is more clear in respect ofcountries like BritishIndia, in which, through a series of fortuitouscircumstances, England hasbeen called to govern a population of alien race,language, and customsout of all numerical proportion to the Englishresiding in the country. Insuch a case, the duties of Government can neither beignored nor resignednor transferred. They are a trust for a cominggeneration and for a newage. Every opportunity must be taken, as it is beingtaken in practicemore and more, to habituate the native population tothe duties of self-govern-ment and to prepare them for a time when the imposedand alien rulecan be first relaxed, then shared, and finallywithdrawn."

File1-Tilak TrialIt is not a question of the very existence ofGovernment, but ofthe form of Government. I have already referred youto what MajorEvans Bell says on the subject and that is exactlywhat Lord Mor-ley says. The question does not touch the existenceof Government. Thebomb-outrages were quickly condemned in my paper asin the Anglo-Indianpapers. We do not hold that bomb throwing is not acriminal act and isnot reprehensible. We condemn it. But in condemningit we say that wemust also condemn the repressive measures ofGovernment. I also ex-plain that it is a power which can be createdwithout requiring muchpreparation. There are certain powers which can becreated by means ofa physical act. This is nothing of the kind ; it issomething Hke a spell andit deserves to be condemned; but in order to repressit and get rid of it cer-

167

taiu reforms are necessary in the administration.Both parties are takingadvantage of the presence of the bomb. TheBureaucratic party are takingadvantage of it to suppress pohtical agitation andthe other party is takingadvantage of it to claim some reforms. I cancertainly ask at your handsthe same privilege in this country as is enjoyed by

File1-Tilak Trialthe EnglishPress at home. It is a very important question. Itis the same question whichwas fought out by Erskine in the case of the Dean ofSt. Asaph. It isthe question that was fought out in England as longago as 1792.English people now enjoy the liberty of the Presswhich they demandedand got in the 18th Century, This is a similar caseand all that I ask isto give it a patient hearing. I know you are placedat a certain disadvantageby not knowing Marathi; but you have anotheradvantage which a Marathi-knowing Jury might not have possessed. You are proudof your traditions.You have got liberty of the Press after a longstruggle and I believe thatyou attach more importance to that than even we dohere. I can tracea great struggle between the people on the one handand a mightyBureaucracy on the other. And I ask you to help us,not me personally,but the whole of India in our endeavours to obtain ashare in the Govern-ment of this country. The matter has come to acritical stage; we are inwant of help ; you can give it to us. I am now onthe wrong sideof life according to the Indian standard of life.For me it can onlybe a matter of a few years, but future generationswill look to yourverdict and see whether you have judged wrong orright. Theverdict is likely to be a memorable one in the

File1-Tilak Trialhistor}^ cf the strugglefor the freedom of the Indian Press. You have aheavy responsibility uponyou. It is, I state again and again, not a personalquestion. If at least oneof you would come forward and say that I was rightin what I did it willbe a matter of satisfaction to me ; for I know thatif the Jury are not una-nimous in England another trial would take place. Itis not so here butit would be a moral support upon which I would relywith great satisfaction.It is a question mainly of intention. You have allread the passages your-selves and you can determine the meaning cf thosepassages and can saywhat the intention was. Was it there an attempt toexcite disaffection orenmity or hatred between auy classes of hisMajesty's subjects? And rememberthat an attempt includes intention and there cannotbe an aimless attempt .When I was in school I was taught a small sentence.' Caesar aimed atthe crown but failed.' That clearly explains theword attempt. Nowas I have put all the circumstances before you youmust read the writingsfor yourselves and decide whether those passages dointend to excite dis-afEection or feelings of enmity. If you could cometo a unanimous verdict,-well and good. If not, then do not try to come toan artificial imanimity.Even one of you saying that I was right would be asourceof satisfaction to nie-a kind of moral support. If

File1-Tilak Trialyou cannot cometo a unanimous conclusion you will state what youthink, each ofyou, whether the articles in question are criminalor not. You might notagree with my views. Even if you do not agree, youare entitled to say that inyour opinion the matter does not come under Section124 A. You mayagree or not with me, you may accept my views or notaccept my views.

168

That is not the point at issue. The point is whetherI was withinmy rights and whether a subject of his Majesty inIndia can or cannotenjoy the same [freedom which is enjoyed by Britishsubjects atHome, and the Anglo-Indians out here J That is thepoint at issue.'It is not a matter of whether the views are correct.I may, who knows, altermy \iews. Gentlemen, and come to your views. Youwill presently hearwhat the Ad\ocate General has to say and after himHis Lordshipwill address you. The responsibility is yours; youwill have to return averdict of guilty or not guilty. Coming from thepeople and knowing theirsentiments and thoughts you will have to say whatyou think would be theeffect. I would ask 5-011 to forget all othercircumstances outside this court.

File1-Tilak TrialYou nuist be reading the daily papers and finding insome of them , I wont sayan attempt but a fact, to associate my name inconnection with somethingwhich is going on in this city. I wanted to bringthe matter to His Lord-ship's notice but I thought it was a small matter.Gentlemen of the Jurj-, youwill have to leave all that out of yourconsideration. I know that there arecertain prejudices against me. I request you to keepaside those prejudices.Judge me on facts. One reason I undertook to defendmyself wasthat you would know the man. I have told you,perhaps bluntly,what I have done. I have concealed nothing from you.I have statedwhat my object is. If you find anything wrongtherein you can return averdict against me. But I believe, nay I amconfident, you wiU find nothingin it against me. You will after taking all thecircumstances into consi-deration return a verdict of not guilty. I am quiteconfident about it. Iappeal to you not for myself but in the interest ofthe cause which I havethe honour to represent. It is a cause that issacred and I doubt not,'Gentlemen, that He before whom all of us will haveto stand one day andrender an account of our actions will inspire yoirwith the courage of yourconvictions and help you in arriving at a rightdecision on the issue involvedin this case.

File1-Tilak TrialMy Lord, I have done. I have already referred to thevagueness ofthe charges and if there is anything which I havenot touched upon andis referred to by the lemed Advocate General and ifhe brings out anythingnew, I request that I may be given an opportunity ofreplying.

His Lordship: — Certainly, if there is any new pointyou have nottouched upon, I will give you a chance of replying.

Accused'. — My Lord and Gentlemen of the Jur}-, Ihave again to thanK.you for the great patience with which you have heardme.

169

The Advocate General's Reply.

Mr. Branson then addressed the Jury as follows :—

I think, gentlemen, you may safely leave futuregenerations to look afterthemselves and in the interests of the presentgeneration not to take up moreof its time than is necessarj-. I must endeavour toconfine myself in myreply to the sense of the word ' attempt ' and to beas brief in doing so asis consistent with my duty not only to the Crown butto the accused. I do

File1-Tilak Trialnot know why the accused should have anticipatedthat I would be inclinedto treat him with any discourtesy. What would begained by that ? Ifit was only a question of motive of which we haveheard so much ; it wouldbe to my advantage not to treat the accused withdiscourtesy but to dowhat I can for him consistent with my duty. I takeit that it is the dut}- ofCounsel appearing for the Crown not to overstatethings or over-press thecase, but put himself in the position of a personwho is trying to help thetribunal to come to a right conclusion. I have triedto avoid saying anythingabout which it could be said that I had donesomething to induce you to cometo a conclusion against the accused. But while doingthat, I could notshorten your tortures in having to listen for fivedays to Mr. Tilak. Icannot guarantee abstaining from inflicting sometorture on you, I canonly say that as far as is consistent with myduties, I will endeavour toavoid all those faults which Mr. Tilak has beenguilty _ of, the imaddening reiteration, saying the same thing overand over again till youmust have been as sick of it as he must have beenhimself. I declineto be drawn into any discussion whatsoever ofpoHtics. Neither younor his Lordship, nor I have anything whatever to dowith the politicswhich have been the source of discussion for thepast three days. Kindly

File1-Tilak Trialremember that. Put the whole of the discussionaddressed to you on thequestion of politics and the position of the partiesaside. You havenothing to do with that. I assure you I am notsaving what I am savingto you of my own mind. I will refer you to what wassaid by the ChiefJustice of Bengal in the sedition case mentioned atpage 36 of No. 19Indian I^aw Reports, Calcutta series and there isalso another point atpage 46 (Reads. 'His Lordship in pointing to theJury their duty said' downto "the only question is the question of intention,you have nothing to dowith the policy of Government" J. If Mr. Tilak hadextended his industries alittle further he would have discovered the futilityof putting before youspeeches of Mr. Erskine finishing up with Evans BeU&c. You have toconsider only the evidence in this case. You have toput aside the wholeof this poHtical discussion. It is not for you orfor me to considerwhether there exist or do not exist parties calledthe pro-Bureaucraticor anti -Bureaucratic. It does not matter whetherthere are or arenot. What Mr. Tilak seems to have forgotten in hisaddress is this.I will assume that he might be right and that theremay be a numberof reforms necessar}-. I will go further and assumethe truth of theallegations which, we say, are made against theGovernment in these

File1-Tilak Trialarticles and assume that these articles show thatthe Government hasbeen acting improperly and reforms are necessar>-.The whole of this

170

is absolutely irreleveut to the trial of this case.I propose hereafter

to lay before you certain propositions which Iventured to advance in

the last sedition case and which met with the entireapproval from

the Bench as to the points to which you are to giveyour attention , But I

must in this instance go over, to a certain extent,the address presented to

you by the accused. You, as I have already said,have nothing to do with the

question of whether reforms are necessary ordesirable. You have nothing to do

with that. It might be a startling proposition toyou, and I intend to

support it by the authority of the Chief Justice Mr.Strachey and the Full

Bench of the High Court as well as the PrivyCouncil. It makes no

File1-Tilak Trial

difference whether the complaints against Governmentare true or not,

The question is, does the language used in thearticles come within the

provisions of Section I24A ? That is a point whichevidently escaped the

attention of Mr. Tilak and his advisers. I shallfollow up later on with a

more detailed discussion of the decisions of thisHigh Court than has been

entered upon by Mr. Tilak. I will draw yourattention at once to what is said

in Mayne, Para: 296 page 521 third edition 1904.Here he points out that the

truth or othrwise of any charge under Section 124 Aneed not be taken into

consideration. Yet we have spent four daysdiscussing whether the charges are

true or untrue, whether well-founded, orill-founded. This is the result of not

carrying out the legal education with which Mr.Tilak started life. He is a

pleader of 25 year's standing. If he had onlycarried out his education he

would never have spent 4 days in stating what is

File1-Tilak Trialabsolutely inaccurate. It

would have been better for him, for you and for me.Now it remains

for me if I can correct the innumerable errors thatcharacterised Mr.

Tilak's address. It is for you on the basis of hisown statement and the

basis of the authorities which are cited to seewhich is correct. Here we

have the authority of one of the best criminallawyers in India ( Reads

paragraph 296 from Mayne's Criminal L,aw. ) Now youwill find that

rule laid down by Mr. Justice Strachey in a casewhich it will be not

necessary to identify.

Accused: — Your Lordship, as I find it difficult tohear I beg that I maybe allowed to take a chair nearer to thex'Vdvocate-General.

His Lordship: — Yes, you may do so.

Adi'ocaic General: — I hope Mr. Tilak willacknowledge that I amcontinuing that courtesy that so much surprised him.

Advocate General continuing his address said: — I

File1-Tilak Trialwill go back to thequestion of the truth or falsity of the grievancesalleged. You will find thatit has been laid down in this case — I do not wishto identify it beyondstating that it is in reference to a former chargeagainst somebody whomI do not at present name-but the law as laid down byMayne, and as pro-pounded not only by Mr. Justice Strachey, who triedthe case atthe Sessions, but by the Full Bench before whom itwas afterwards taken be-cause the accused was dissatisfied with Mr. JusticeStrachey 's summing up,and by the Privy Council, to whom it was taken. ThePrivy Councilsupported Mr. Justice Strachey' s views, and youwill find every point I

171

am now stating to you with regard to the fact, theexistence of any grievancereal or supposed being no defence whatever to anoffence under section124 A. You will find that law laid down distinctly,and approved completelyby the Privy Council in these terms, and thereforeit is that I am directingyour attention at the outset to the law which iscompletely subversive ofall that Mr. Tilak has said. It will economise mytime and yours, but it issufficient for me to draw your attention now to whatthe Privy Council

File1-Tilak Trialsaid and you will find that they approved of Mr.Justice Strachey's summingnp as supported by a Full Bench on an applicationbased upon a contentionthat the summing up was defective, and which wasafterwards made theground for an appUcation to the Privy Council forleave to appeal. Youcannot get leave from the Privy Council to appealexcept with the permissionof the Full Bench here. The Full Bench only grantspermission on certainterms and under certain circumstances involvinglaw-points, involvingserious points of law, as for instancemis-direction. The application wasrefused by the Full Bench, but you will find thatwhen the application wasmade to the Privy Council for special leave toappeal, two of the groundswhich were put forward were ( Reads ' the Judge hasmisdirected thejury ' down to 'readers' ) It is a curiouscommentary on the case thathe himself put foward that there was a feeling ofexcitement outside thisPresidency, as to which he says there can be nodoubt. His readers, he says,have been familiar with his views for years, and hiscontention is that hisreaders know exactly what he means, and entertainingthe views he enter-tains would not be likely to be affected by thearticle. Many writers besideshimself stated that there was a feeling ofexcitement. I digress for a momentbecause of the peculiar appositeness of the pointwhich was put forward in

File1-Tilak Trialthe appeal, by Mr. Tilak. ( Reads from applicationfrom 'the Judge hasnot pointed out to the jury ' down to ' Kesari of15th June ' ) You wiUfind that in the argument which was addressed to theJudicial Committee byMr. Asquith, ( Reads from Mayne down to ' thatpetition ' ). Lord Hals-bury in delivering the Judgment of the Privy Councilsays this { Reads from'taking into consideration' down to 'by the light ofwhat he said on the otherside '. ) So that you have a most completeconfirmation of Mr. JusticeStrachey's summing up in the former case in whichone of the chief pointsincluded against His Lordship's summing up is one ofthe most admirable onthe question of the Section that I am aware of.Every point which can arise,and has arisen in this case, has been discussed byMr. Justice Strachey incomplete opposition to what has been the defence ofMr. Tilak. That is whyI have pointed out to you the decision of the PrivyCouncil, as supporting mycontention that the truth of the language chargedwith sedition cannot bepleaded or proved. The absurdity of the propositionthat you can plead orprove the truth of the allegation in reply to thecomplaint is shown by Mayne,para 296, page 523. ( Reads paragraph. ) This was acase where the samepoint was raised, and Lord Campbell for the firsttime urged that you can pleadtruth of allegation under the Civil Libel Act. Thisis an attempt to intro-

File1-Tilak Trialduce the same effect in a Criminal prosecution. Nowit has been tried to applythat in a criminal case, and Mr. Justice Lawrancesaid (Reads from ' theCourt is gravely asked '^ down to 'excitinghostiHty.^ ) That is the fatal

172

absurdity which Mr. Tilak has been committingthroughout the last fourdays.

^r^a^^^ disclaimed having done so.

Advocate- General : — I have carefully avoidedinterfering with Mr.Tilak, and cannot I ask for the same consideration ?The only time whenI internipted him was on two occasions, one when heused an expressionwhich seemed to me to be extremely offensive, andthe other was on the-occasion when he proposed to read an article {Exhibit 64, ) as representinghis views in the case. I objected, and as it turnedout my objection was inhis favour. His L/ordship interposed and withdrewthat Exhibit from you.I am going to refer to it again later on. These arethe only two occasionswhen I interrupted, once rightly, and the other timein his favour, althoughI was not aware of it at the time, and I expect thesame consideration, unlessit can be said that I am misrepresenting something.

File1-Tilak TrialBut Mr. Tilak knowswhat a valuable asset it would be in the hands of aperson who wished todivert attention from what the other person waslading before the Jury. Ithink I shall not be interrupted again ; if I am Ishall respond much morestrongly than I have done. Now I shall come back tothe law. Evenassuming Mr. Tilak's contentions extending over manydays, supposingthat there are things which would be better forreformation, supposingeverything alleged against Government in thearticles is true, that is.no defence whatever if you come to the conclusionthat the article com-plained of comes within provisions of Section 124 A.As to Section 153 AI do not intend to occupy more of your time thanfive minutes at ¦ the endof my address. Section 124 A is the more importantone. When you cometo read the Section yourselves and study it you willfind its applicability tothis particular case. You will find that all thediscussion put before you,and which I am not going to be led into thetemptation of following — allthat is irrelevent, and represents so much waste oftime. I don't regret, youdon't regret, listening to Mr. Tilak; otherwisethere is no point in all hesaid. Suppose I had interrupted; he knew weU whatwas irrelevent, becausethe law as laid down by him was contrary to the lawlaid down in the caseof which he is himself personally aware. He ought to

File1-Tilak Trialhave known that itwas improper, at all events fatal on his part toattempt to persuade you to takethat view of the law which would be immoral and wascorrected from theBench, and which he must have known was an incorrectstatement of the law,'He suggests to you that he is entitled to discussparty questions betweenthe pro-bureaucrats and anti-bureaucrats, and indoing so is entitled to saywhat he pleases, and if he does so from what hecalls lofty motives anda pure mind he insists upon a verdict of not guitly.No greater mistake everentered the mind of a legal practitioner. I shalldirectly call your attention tothe real law of motive and intention, which has gotso jumbled up in the mindof the accused that he could not present it inproper form before you. Thatis his misfortune. I do not desire to say anythingregarding the time heoccupied in his speech although it extended overfive days, so that it wouldbe impossible for him now to say that he has notsaid all that he had tosay, and all that he desired to say. He has said allthat he could say, and allthat he wished to say, so far as this case isconcerned. I do not look upon

173

it as a case of any great importance. Of course itis of great importance to

File1-Tilak TrialMr. Tilak, and it has occupied a great length oftime, and he has had aperfectly clear and impartial hearing ; and if HisLordship or I wished tointerrupt him as we were entitled to do, as Mr.Tilak acknowledges wehad a right to do, you may be perfectly certain thatin his own organs andin sympathetic organs published elsewhere, you wouldhave heard theoutcry " the man has not had a fair hearing &c."That cannot be suggestednow. We may take it from that comment that he hashad the opportunityof saying every thing he desired to say and thatnothing remains, at leastI hope not unless I introduce any new element intothe case. This he willhave a perfect right to do. But I do not intend tointroduce anything newexcept by mere accident. — ^

Well it is cooler here than where he was sittingbefore. I do not feelmyself in present exasperation at his proximity orany prognostication as towhat may happen from his proximity. I am acting asfar I can toeconomise time. Perhaps you will think I have notdone so so far. But I amtelling you the reason why I declined to follow Mr.Tilak in that part ofhis address which refers to politics. I am doing soon the ground that it hasbeen held that it is not discussable by this Courtor by the Privy Council.I am able to say with confidence that your time willbe very materially

File1-Tilak Trialeconomised. You will find from what his I^ordshipwill tell you that there arereally and truly only three points which you have toconsider in this case.In fact really and truly there are only two points.I will sub-divide one point.The first point is, did the accused print andpublish the articles complainedof and is he responsible ? The answer is yes. Hehimself said so.This is a matter of no interest to you because it isproved beyond a shadowof doubt. It was proved by the declarations underthe Press Act. Those•declarations were made in 1907 and declared Mr.Tilak to be the editor,printer and piiblisher of this paper. It is notnecessary to pursue thismatter, because I think he now admits that he is theeditor, printer andpubhsher. If so, the law makes him liable, and hehas done wisely to admitliability for everything that appeared in thatpaper, whether written byhimself or not .

Then the second branch of the first question isanswered by himself,in which he apparently glories and in which hesomehow manages to see aglamour of humour. My recollection is that thehumour consisted of asuggestion to murder, hatred &c. He admits thatwhich the law imposesupon him. That admission to the first question isanswered in both thesequestions. The next question that would arise wouldbe, having got the

File1-Tilak Trialfact that these articles were written, I won't sayby himself-he does not saythey were, but assuming that they were not writtenby him, it matters not,'the next question you have to consider is thethoughts, words and meaningof these articles. What he now says he meant bythose articles, that isnot the point. He has been trying his best to throwall the dust hecould collect, even in the monsoon weather, intoyour eyes on this point.It is not what he now says he meant, but what hemeant when he wrotethem. Chapter and verse I will give you veryshortly, when I discuss the

174

words on which I am going to rely. And he cannot beallowed to say now' of conrse I wrote sedition, and meant affection.'Words are not whatyou have to consider. You have to decide, Gentlemen,upon the languagehe used, and what he meant. You cannot take from himnow a statementthat what he wrote was not what he meant, but whathe means now. Youwill find that that is the law.

Now it is for you, as sole judges of the facts, todraw your own conclusionfrom the words of the articles themselves as to whathe meant . I have nothingI can say to you upon this point beyond what I shall

File1-Tilak Trialpresently have to sayin referring to the articles themselves. That is amatter for you to decide.What do you think these articles meant when theywere written? You cannottake his statement now that he meant something else,unless it is corroboratedby the words of the articles themselves . Having gotthe meaning of thearticles from the words of the articles, the nextpoint to consider is whatdid he intend by these articles ? Was his intentionsuch as would bring himwithin the wording of the Section 124 A, or do thecircumstances of thecase bring him within the exceptions or explanationsof Section 124 A?If you come to the conclusion that the articlescomplained of and chargedcome within the wording of the first clause of theSection there is an end ofthe case. On the other hand if you come to theconclusion that when hewrote these articles he knew they were capable ofthe interpretationthat the Prosecution now puts on them there is anend of the case also. Ifyou do this the next point to be considered iswhether you can by anyperversion of the language give him the benefit ofthe explanations 2 or 3 ./Now upon that point accused has made some remarksabout the proof being-/ wrongly put upon him. Presently when I am dealingmore at length withindividual remarks of the defence I will show youthat he is completelywrong. The Judicial and Legislative authorities are

File1-Tilak Trialabsolutely against him.Once there is 2, prima facie case, to get out of acharge the burden of prooflies on the defence. And in this case he must bringhimself under theexplanation of the general law. Here again Mr. Tilakadvances a propositionon an imperfect reading of Section 105. of theEvidence Act. Mr. Tilakcomplained yesterday that the case had been broughtwrongly under Section153 A. Now, in a few minutes I will call yourattention to Section 105 ofthe Evidence Act, and you will see how fatal it is.The whole of his argu-ment with regard to the extent of the circumstancespointing to the neces-sity of the advisability of reform of the Governmentis completely immaterial.( Reads Sec. 105. ) There are one or two otherpoints which I do notpropose to follow Mr. Tilak in discussing. And Ithink that you will becharmed by my decision. We had to listen to adiscussion of English law asit is supposed by Mr. Tilak, and what he calledJury-made law. I thinkthat is a point I do not propose to follow. It maybe interesting, no doubt, butanybody who has read that introduction to Fox'sLibel Act, would have putthe case before you in ten minutes. There was a timewhen Juries wereinclined to take their stand in England, onJury-made law but that doesnot apply to this coimtry. But in this particularcase of which Mr.Tilak must have an intimate knowledge Mr .Justice

File1-Tilak TrialStrachey at theoutset stated, I will read you his words so that Imay not be said tobe straining or misrepresenting what he said. Hesaid ( Reads ^ I

175

don't propose to discuss the English law ' down to 'Penal Code ' ) NowI have already told you that that summing up wasapproved by theFuU Bench, and also appro\'ed by the Privy Council.Therefore Ithink I am entitled to say on the highest authoritythat the whole of thediscussion with regard to the applicability orotherwise of the English law,in fidl or in part in a charge of seditious libel inIndia may be safely left outof the discussion. If you are curious to know thereal law in England, orif you are curious to know what the circumstanceswere in regard to theintroduction of Fox's Libel Act, you will j5nd it inthe introduction of Camp-bell's ' Life of Erskine.' You might have beenspared all those books whichhave been wearily referred to in connection withFox's Act of SeditiousLibel and the possibility of its applying to thiscountr>\ It is. all stated inone and a half pages of the book I have referred to.I think, Gentlemen,that I may put it to you that unless you wish, orHis Lordship wishes that

File1-Tilak TrialI should say more upon the point than I have statednow, it will be safefor you to have it, as it stands, and so I do notintend to discuss the Eno-lishlaw because it has been held that it does not applyto this country, and thePrivy Council has upheld that decision. We have gotthe Penal Code, j-oucannot take away from it, and you cannot add to it.That brings one tothe next point of these voluminous dicussions towhich we have aU had tolisten, possibly with profit, I cannot say. You willsay whether therehas been any profit to your minds by the discussionon theliberty ot the press. You have been told that youare guardians of the pressFiddlesticks ! You are guardians of the press nomore than I am. BeforeGod you are guardians of the Penal Code and thePenal Code protects thepress. You have been told that you are guardians ofthe press over and overagain, until one really felt inclined to rebelagainst the doctrine of theliberty of the subject. You are not the guardians ofthe press ; and I am notentitled to write what I please saying that I amwriting in the interests ofmy party, or in the interests of the freedom of thepress,' You will findthat these are points which have all been dealt withfirst by Mr. JusticeStrachey, then Sir Lawrence Jenkins, and lastly byMr. Justice Batty. Toall the three cases it will be my duty to draw yourattention with a little ipore

File1-Tilak Trialdetail later on. I will take one instance now, apassage in which Mr.Justice Batty, in Indian Law Reports, 22 Bombay,page 137, says (Reads jHe points out what is meant by this much-abused andmisleading phraseliberty of the press. Mr. Tilak thinks it means thathe is entitled to writewhat he likes no matter how seditious it may be, orhow many suggestionsit contains of murder or brings about a dastardlymurder; he willjustify himself by reference to his writings, whichI cannot understandanybody with any human feelings sitting down towrite and then sajino-"it is correct, my motives are pure so please returna verdict of notguilty against • me . " I will take a longer passagethan what I intendedto put at first and the passage which I am going tocite explains thelaw which is applicable, and which, your Lordship, Iam perfectlycertain, is actually the law. If you are of opinionthat these articles comewithin Section 124 A, it matters not two strawswhether as a matter offact any disaffection was caused, or any hatred wascaused, [li you come to

176

the conclusion that the meaning of the wordspublished was an intention toexcite hatred against the Government established by

File1-Tilak Triallaw, the effect of itsfailure or success is completely immaterial. It isequally immaterial that theexcitement should not have been a disturbance to thepoint of mutiny. That isnot a matter of any importance in judging of thecriminal liability ofany person charged with having written articleswhich come withinSection 124 A. Now you will see that I havediscussed a littleupon this point for a few moments. I am now going totell you what Mr.Justice Strachey says in his judgment when he dealsnot only with theSection, but with the word attempt. He lays down inthe clearest possibleterms in his summing up which has besn accepted bySir LawrenceJenkinp. and Mr. Justice Batty with regard to what aperson mayor may not write. Mr. Justice Strachey says thisafter discussing theexamples of section 124 A as it existed before theyear 1898. I shall haveto draw your attention to the meaning of the Act foryou will find thatas it now stands it is due to the judgment of Mr.Justice Stracheyas approved by the Privy Council and the Full-Benchfollowing as it didrulings in Calcutta and Allahabad High Courts. Inconsequence of theseseries of rulings before 1898 and the fact that theSection was somewhatcumbrously worded it was amended. In discussing theAct as it originallystood his Lordship said f Reads from " You will

File1-Tilak Trialobserve that the section"to ' that he succeeds' j. We have had a mostextraordinary series of conten-tions extending over 3 days showing that Mr. Tilakhad completely failed tounderstand the words used by the Chief Justice withregard to the word attempt.I must try to put the matter clearly before you, asthe absurdity of. Mr.Tilak'sarguments may have raised a certain amount ofuncertainty in your minds.He seems to think that you cannot have an attemptunless the attempt hasbeen frustrated from some physical cause outside thecontrol of the personmaking the attempt. That is to say that it must be acause which indepen-dently of himself prevents success. Consider theabsolute absurdity of suchan observaion. If a man prevents himself in makingan attempt he does notmean any attempt, or if he has started on theattempt and then stopshimself he can claim locus penitentie^ of which wehave heardin one of the quotations in this case. Mr. Tilak hasnotunderstood the law laid down by Mr. Justice Batty,and the Chief Justice.'They say with regard to attempt, (Reads down to "something over whichthe person has no control. " ) I fail to follow Mr.Tilak's argument whichnever approaches the boundary mark of common sense.You will find Mr.Justice Batty's judgment in the case whichhasbeenthe subject of affectionatereference on behalf of the accused. Mr. Tilak

File1-Tilak Trialproceeds to say that the Jurycan decide against the Judge, and he refers toJury-made law. He quotesto you from a case which was cited by my learnedfriend Mr. Inverarity,and without misrepresenting Mr. Tilak's ownargument, I will referyou to the case in 1810 against Lambert and Perrycited by Mr. Inverarity.Mr. Tilak suggested to you that this was a case ofJury-made law, and thatit is for the Jury to decide what is seditions, whenhe turned to the rulingcited by my learned friend as to the liberty andlicence of speech I will read

177

you what Mr. Justice Cave says with regard tointention. ( Reads from,page 365. ' a man cannot escape from theconsequences ' down to' violence. ') That is to say that Mr. Justice Cavewas not aware of theexistence of any rule of law or common sense, thatyou cannot have anattempt unless you show that there has been somephysical interferencebetween the attempt and the intended act. It is suchabject nonsense thatI can hardly believe that Mr. Tilak is not pullingthe legs of the Jury inputting it forward. To suppose that Judges would uselanguage whichinfers or suggests inuendoes, and use theseparticular words in

File1-Tilak Trialsumming up to juries, and in laying down what thelawis, means audacioiis effronter}- which I confess Inever could reo-ard thepossibility of in my own mind. Now let us go back towhat I was sayingwith regard to the freedom of the Press, a subjectwe heard of adnaitsium till Mr. Tilak decided to sit down. This iswhat Mr. JusticeStrachey says and I read it to yeu only to reinforcethe judgments of theChief Justice and Mr. Justice Batty C Reads from 'having discussed ' downto ' excite feelings. ') Let me pause for one momentto point out to youanother fallacy which has some bearing upon thisparticular part of thecase, put forward by Mr. Tilak. He seems to be underthe impressionthat you must have something besides the articleitself impeached as evi-dence, before you can convict. To show you that thatis completely wrono-^I will refer you again to Chief Justice Sir ComerPetheram's decision inIndian Law Reports 19, Calcutta, page 35. ( Reads. )Here you find thatif you have got the articles, from them you can drawyour own inferencesas to whether there was an attempt or not. Furtherevidence is unnecessar>'for the Prosecution, but the absence of it does nottell fatally against theaccused. Perhaps I am travelling out of the courseof the arguments uponwhich I first embarked, but you will allow me to goout of my way for a

File1-Tilak Trialfew minutes and follow Mr. Tilak's habit of jumpingfrom subject to sub-ject. Look at Mr. Tilak's position in this case. Hesays "from year to yearI have been pubUshing the same views as appear inthese articles ; no onecan be misled because they are exactly what theirviews and my viewsare ; these views have been urged by the Congressfor so long that therecan be no possibility of my language beingmisunderstood by those whoread it, and they are only old ideas clothed in newwords. They conveyto them no new ideas. " That being so, how is itthat of the hundreds ofreaders of the Kesari not a single soul has beenproduced to show that hetook a difierent view of the language of thosearticles to what we placebefore the Jury.

Why, Gentlemea, he has been^surrounded from thebeginning of thetrial. There are pleaders to right of him, pleadersto left of him,pleaders in front of him, while he did thethundering. He isquite right to do so ; a man may defend himself inany way helikes. Many of them, indeed most of them know theaccused's Views andmy own. And they will know that I am not contendinganything with aview to annoying, but they well know that I amsaying this to showthat any of them might have come forward to say'this construction on the

File1-Tilak Trialarticles is not correct.' Why does not somebody comeforward to say 'youare wrong in your interpretation of the article.' Ithink that it was just aswell perhaps that I was allowed to digress for amoment. I shall have to

178

come back to it because it is a matter which willhave to be dealt withmore seriously later on. I think I was right to drawyour attention to thesequestions of language and intention and that he hadmeans of contradic-ting our evidence . Our evidence consists of thearticles themselves, thewords in which these articles are couchded and theevidence of the OrientalTranslator. His evidence as testified, is to theeffect that the translationsare correct in every particular except in one case.I will come to thatlater. But otherwise the translations are correct.That is the evidence andthere is no other evidence to contradict it. Youcannot take Mr. Tilak'sword that these translations are wrong. I have noobjection to those ofyou who cau read the original Marathi instructingtheir fellow jurymenand you will find that there is not a single pointof any importance. Ifyou decide on the e\'idence and nothing else, Mr.Tilak's arguments, hisallegations as to wrong translations are of no

File1-Tilak Trialeffect. If you are satisfied thathe is correct, give him the benefit by all means ofthe contentions he hasput forward. The evidence uncontradicted is this,and the force of theterms uncontradicted is this; if Mr. Joshi'sevidence was not true theaccused had his host of readers in the mofussil andhis host of pleaders toprove that the translations were wrong or distorted.But not a shred ofevidence is produced to prove that the articles donot, as Mr. Joshi saysthey do, in English accurately represent the Marathiof the original to theordinary Marathi reader. Inferred from the articlesthemselves thisevidence as to the meaning of these articles and thetranslations of thesearticles is conclusive. It will only be necessaryfor me to say very littlemore when I come to deal with the individual wordsraised by Mr . Tilakincluding the alleged distortions.

Now I come back to Mr. Justice Strachey's views withregard not onlyto the extent and limitations of the rights ofpublic speech and public writ-ings and the manner in which you are entitled to getat the meaning ofthe articles which are impeached as going beyond theprivileges conferredby the law. It must be obvious to you what I want tosay, the only way,certainly almost the only way to discover what a manmeans is to read"what he writes or hear what he says. If he says he

File1-Tilak Trialdid not mean what hesaid or wrote and does not produce any evidence, itmay be, as the ChiefJustice Sir Lawrence Jenkins says, the rough andready means of arrivingat a conclusion, but what other means have you got?Now Mr. JusticeStrachey says this (Reads ' It is true that there isa charge before you 'down to ' responsibility. ' ) And then His lyordshipwent on to deal withone of the points made by Mr. Tilak the exactbearing of which Iconfess I did not at the time understand and havenot yet understood.( Reads ' authority ' down to 'of the Government.' )And then, Gentlemen,His Lordship proceeds to deal with the examples ofthe section as they thenstood. I should Hke to draw your attention to thewording of this section andexamine the particulars of this section as it stoodbefore 1898. The explanationis somewhat different in wording from the concludingpart of the section.It was much the same as it is now. ( Readsexplanation of Section 124 Aas it existed before 1898. ) Practically it seems tomy view very much thesame, as the Section is [now amended, although it isnot concluded in lan-guage of such definite accuracy as the Section nowis. His Lordship went

179

File1-Tilak Trialon ( Reads ' a man may point ' to ' intention. ' )You will find that everyword of this is applicable to the amended section asit stands now ( Readsthe revised explanations of Section 124 A. )

Now, his IvOrdship then went on to say f Reads 'Ifthe writings can bereasonably' down to 'subvert or resist thisauthority.' j Next his Lordshipwent on to discuss the question of what is themeaning of the words disaffec-tion or disapprobation as intended in the Section asit then stood. He says(Reads 'a man may criticise' down to ' upon it. ')Whoever disputedthis? Whoever disputed that there was this right ofdiscussion either inspeech or in the Press? The law says it must not becarried to the extent oflicense. The Section now reads (Reads Section 124 Aas now constituted^ ]You may use language of the utmost violence providedyou do not outstepthe limit to the extent of exciting or attempting toexcite hatred or con-tempt against the Government. Provided you do not dothat you maycomment upon the measures of ^ Government,legislative or otherwise,proposed or carried into effect by the Government,in any language youplease. Mr. Tilak must have known that thisextensive liberty of thePress has been recognised not only by thelegislature itself but by thejudgments of judges one of which he must bepersonally familiar with.

File1-Tilak TrialXook at the words of the Judge (Reads from 'he maydiscuss' down to'unfairly') . What greater freedom of the Press canyou want ? He followson (Reads 'so long as' down to 'its motives') Theimputations here are thatthe British Government with the idea of enrichingEngland are robbino- thepeople of India. ( Reads to 'that will not savehim') . That did not warrantMr. Tilak inevadingthis statement of the law withwhich he must be familiar.It did not warrant his rushing off to a forest ofbooks by means of which, ifyou read a sufficient number of them which you wouldnot understand, heso hid the wood that you could not see the wood fromthe trees. Mr. JusticeStrachey says ( Reads ' not only to the Government 'down to ' to the peo-ple.' ) The Privy Council themselves say that thisis the correct represen-tation of the law. The Full Bench when applied torefused to accept thatthere was anything wrong in the summing-up. And nowyou will see thenecessity and advantage of drawing your attention tothe confirmation by theJudicial Committee of the whole of this summing-upin which they did notsee reason to alter one single word. Now what comesof all this bunkumabout the freedom of the Press? Freedom of the Presshas been turned intoan engine for the exercise of license which, so fara's one can judge, has nolimit, except the wiU of persons who claim to beexempt from all restraint

File1-Tilak Trial-upon what they call the liberty of the Press,including the right to abusethe Government and contend that liberty of the Pressis inconsistent withthe existence of the Government as it stands now . Iput it to you thatthere is no escape from the contention put forwardby the defence.' So faras Mr. Tilak 's contentions have gone that is whathe says and nothingelse. If you give Government any powers of restraintover the Press thosepowers must go. Government immediately becomestyrannical, despotic,call it what you like, but Government with any poweris inconsistent with,the freedom of the Press, therefore do away withGovernment. That is theburden of his song. Can there be anything moredangerous? Anarchy wouldfollow as sure as night following day. Once let itgo to the pubUc that, that'

180

contention is well-founded and that there is no harmin these articles andthat there can be no limitations imposed byGovernment of the countryupon what these people choose to call the liberty ofthe Press, and you willrepent the day that you allowed this doctrine to beput forward. Anarchywill follow as sure as night follows day and withAnarchy will comenaturally a reign of violence the sound of which

File1-Tilak TrialLord Morley said in antici-pation he could hear roaring. Now I have very nearlyexhausted this sum-ming-up; but it is a summing-up of such vitalimportance to all con-cern'ed among others to those who would first fallvictims to the outbreakwhich would inevitably result upon Mr. Tilak'sdoctrines being accept-ed. When this summing-up is of such vital importancewith regardto the discussion which you have had to listen tofor the past fivedays, much against my will and I have no doubt muchagainst yours,I have no option but to draw your attention tofurther passages. Mr.Justice Strachey says at page 138 ( Reads 'for if aman comments' to'fexplanation.') Then in discussing the morerestricted view which hadbeen put forward of the meaning of the Section, hisLordship went on to sayCReads from ' inclusive intention ' down to'forcible resistance'). Thenhe pointed out to the Jury what they were to do indirecting their mindsto the articles which were impeached ( Reads from'it was intended *down to ' Mahomedan general ' ), The articles inquestion consisted ofa discussion with regard to Shivaji, and the allegedmurder of AfzulKhan. It contained also something which is said tobe in the vernacular,a poem. But when it is reduced to English it may beanything youlike. It was supposed to be a poem about the

File1-Tilak Trialhill-fort Pratabgarh. Itwas an article which concerned the death of AfzulKhan. His Lordshipsaid (Reads ' there are questions ' down to 'language of the articles ' )That follows the direction of all the English casesof which I am aware.'Tha is more to the point, because English law is notapplicable; it followsthetlines laid down in these Courts, and atCalcutta. You must infer inten-tion from the articles, and you have to look at thesurrounding circum-stances. I quite admit that in order to arrive atthe intention of thewriter you have to take not only the language butall the surrounding;circumstances of the case, as applying to the peopleto whom thearticles are addressed, and of the writer himself.You have also toconsider the probable effect on the minds of thereaders. All this hasto be taken into consideration in arriving at aconclusion whether arnot he intended what the Prosecution say is themeaning of his words.You gather that intention first of all from thearticles. You take intoconsideration certain conditions and from thearticles put in you drawyour conclusions.

Here we have articles between 12th May and 9th Junepublished atweekly intervals, to the language of which I amgoing to ask yourvery serious attention, to what was in his mind at

File1-Tilak Trialthe time that he wrotethem. And can you believe that what he ^.indended todo, and what hesays was that he disapprobated the bomb, and alsothe repressivemeasures ? You will see for yourselves in a fewmoments that this wasonly a hypocritical plan. It is impossible tobelieve that the writer couldhave had in his mind anything but approving thehideous murders at

181

Muzzuferpur and Poona. As I said before, it seemsimpossible that anyhuman person could praise the two acts of murder ashe has done. I don'tthink, Gentlemen, you could have got the strength ofthese expressionswhen they were read to you at some speed. And whenaccused did notwant to draw attention to particularly offensivepassages, he gabbled themover as fast as he could as a safeguard and trustedto their escaping yourattention. 1 come back to the summing-up because youhave to lookthrough a screen that is put up till you havepierced and obtained a viewof the real figure behind that screen, which isintention, the screen beingintended to obstruct the mind of the reader . Sothose who have to sitin judgment on the articles must, as Mr. JusticeStrachey says — and he

File1-Tilak Trialputs it in better language than I can frame — askthemselves what theintention of the writer is . (Reads ' You must askyourselves ' to ' of thewriter. ' ) And in the passage immediately precedingthat frequentsentence his Lordships says, f Reads 'In judging ofthe intention ' to^ criticism and comment.') Apply every one of thosewords to thesearticles before you and I venture to suggest,perhaps I ought not to usethat expression, but I venture to submit that thecase for the Prosecutionis clear beyond doubt, by the evidence adduced inthis case and producedby the accused himself, evidence which he cannotchallenge. It comesfrom his own words. I am assuming of course that youagree in ourcontention that the articles themselves come withinthe provision ofsection 124 A. I have already said* if you come tothe conclusion thatthe articles cannot b;^ any means whatever beconstrued as falling withinthe provisions of that Section there is an end ofthe case. But I think itwill give you pause to come to any such conclusion.You have had thearticles read to you, but read in the spirit which Ihave described.The accused read them as fast as he could; he didnot stop to considerthe points against him; he tried to suggest wrongtranslations, and^ madegrossly improper suggestions against theTranslator's ofiice. I maintain that

File1-Tilak Trialthe articles have been translated in theTranslator's office by ^the^ inter-pretors sworn to do their duty. What reasontherefore had Mr. Tilak tosay that they deliberately distorted in this case tomake a case for theProsecution and ruin the accused^? These wereutterly groundlessinsinuations made by Mr. Tilak, who at the same timetried to wriggleout of them, but he had not the courage to state inso many words, and hehad not the courage to attempt to contradictanything by evidence. " Isuggest nothing against these people, but they aredistorted translations."That may be a manly way of defending oneself, but Ido not think it is away that will recommend itself to your minds. Somuch for the contentsof the documents, the manner in which the intentionis to be derivedfrom them, and the manner in which you mustendeavour to form yourown views as to the intention from the documentsthemselves, as to themeanings of the writings which can be adopted forthe purpose of conceal-ing the real meaning of the writer.

And now I shall draw your attention to expressionsin favour of theaccused, which I had proposed myself to sayindependent of the judg-ment. If you can consistently with the discharge ofyour duties, andwith your conscience, having regard to your thoughtsin the jury box

File1-Tilak Trial

182

and to what you have heard, come to the conclusionthat these articles do-not come within vSection 124 A, then it is your dutyto give the accusedthe benefit of any serious doubt. No one hasdisputed, or will disputethis proposition. You must, if you can, put aninnocent interpretationconsistent with your duty to the Government and thepublic, and to yourconscience, and you must give the benefit of thedoubt, and as ninehonest men, stand up and say, 'we have read thesearticles and there isnothing in them which can be construed as comingwithin the meaningof the Section.' Give the words the most liberalconsideration that youthink tb§y are entitled to, take into considerationwhat Mr. JustibeStrachey says ( Reads ' a journalist is not expected' down to ' all this ')You must not take isolated words which strike you asbeing particularlyoffensive. That is not the right way to deal withthis case. Take thewritings as a whole. And in this case you have tO'take not only thesetwo writings of 12th May and 9th June, but take thefive interveningarticles as throwing light upou the intention of thewriter of the twoincriminating articles . You will read them all as

File1-Tilak Trialthrowing a mild lightupon each other, and from their rays you will beable to direct yourown mental vision on the question of what the manmeans. You willread them all together, and as those writings shedlight on these twobring your vision to bear on this question, and theonly question to beconsidered in this case is, what is the intention ofthe writer. Withregard to the question of the translations I mightperhaps, as I amdealing with this summing-up, draw your attention tothe sensibleremarks which characterise the summing-up of Mr.Justice Strachey. In thecourse of his judgment he says f Reads from 'youhave heard much discus-sion' 1o 'articles.') Then, his Lordship pointed outf Reads 'it is a mistaketo suppose' to 'is called free' J. Then he drew theattention of the Jury tothe two sides of the translations, and gave hissuggestions accordingas they came to the conclusion, whether onetranslation was correct, orthe other was incorrect, as to what the Jury shoulddo. Now gentlemen,before I leave this book I would like you to knowthat when the accusedin this case proposed to take the case before theFull-Bench for the purposeof obtaining leave to appeal to the Privy Council,one of the groundsset forth in the petition for leave to appeal wasthat there had beenmis-direction to the Jury on the following points.

File1-Tilak TrialYou need only concernyourself with one of them, ' That the wordGovernment meant BritishRule, or its representatives'. You see the samepoint was forcedupon you by Mr. Tilak, as he maintained here. Heseems to thinkBureaucracy, which is his own favourite expression,does not represent theGovernment because the Bureaucracy is really theservices. That is onepart of the argument and the other part of theargument is that theBureucracy represents the officers of Government atlarge. You see hisview here was, that the Judge had misdirected theJury^with regard to theword Government. This question of the Bureaucracynot representing theGovernment is all nonsense and sheer waste of time.Other pointsalso made in the petition. ' A matter of greatimportance to the sub-jects of the Crown' that is Mr. Tilak's claim here ;he representsevery one including himself except the Bureaucracyand the British.

183

Government whom he claims to libel. He says •,* thiscase isone of the greatest importance. ' Gentlemen, thatcontention wasput forward in forwarding this petition, and isequally false, f Reads 'that

File1-Tilak Trialyour petitioner is also advised' down, to 'in India') The objectionwas to the summing-up. The summing-up stated 'youcan say what you likein language however offensive with regard to thelegislative actionsor any other actions of Government, provided you donot attackGovernment itself and provided you do not attack theBritish Governmentas constituted and as represented, and also providedyou do not comewithin the words of section 124 A, and bring orattempt to bring intohatred or contempt the Government. You can say whatyou please in anyfoul and disgusting language you choose to adopt.'That was the sum-ming-up of the Judge and it was afterwards contendedthat it was a wrongsumming-up. It was so contended in the applicationto the Privy Counciland the Full-Bench considered that there were no;grounds whatever forinterference, or for granting leave to appeal, andmany other points whichthe Full-Bench dealt with. Sir Charles Farran, theChief Justice, indelivering judgment said { Reads from ' thedefinition of the wordGovernment ' to ' an illustration. ' ) Therefore,Gentlemen, that judg-ment shows in a most conclusive manner how the pointhas been dealtwith. It is the same point that has been advanced inthis case, and thatdiscussion must be our guiding star in dealing withthe facts and conten-

File1-Tilak Trialtions on both sides, with regard to the articlesimpeached, and the ar-ticles put forward for the purpose of trying toguide you on the correctpath to a decision on these two articles. You are tosay what theintention was of the writer, and what inference youdraw as a result oftheir perusal. You will find according to mycontention when youcome to look at the details of the case put forwardby the accused,that the case has no merits, and no substance. Itwill be for youto say whether my contention is right or wrong. Mycontentionis that there is really no defence which can beseriouslyconsidered, notwithstanding the length of time thatthe Accused took inelaborating the case, and which his advisers andadmirers considered anadmirable defence. And really it was a capabledefence, in so far as itconsisted in reading a large number of books andextracts and drawingwrong conclusions from them. You will find thatthere is nothing in hiscase. I propose to deal here very summarily and Ihope to disposeequally summarily with the principal points whichhave been raised byMr. Tilak. Besides this I have already mentioned toyou that he mighthave saved himself the discussion and theexpenditure of time and labour overthe Marathi. I propose to make a very summarystatement in disposing

File1-Tilak Trialof Mr, Tilak' s points, and I hope to avoid thenecessity of going back tothem more in detail, although it may be necessary ata later stage of thediscussion. I don't think it will, and I hope bythis summary disposalof his points to still further economise time whichI feel I have beenoccupying. But I hope that there has been somejustification havingregard to the importance of the case to the publicat large, including theinterests which Mr. Tilak says he represents, namelythe Liberty of thePress and his community. I think on four differentoccasions Mr.

184

Tilak found fault with the translations, the lastoccasion being thismorning. Here again one can hardly believe Mr. Tilakwas serious,but one can understand he is in a very dangerous,and I might say,a very desperate condition. Any straw that he canget hold of, tofloat on the tide of ruin on which he has swepthimself, he must clutchat. And of course the first thing that he has to dois to impeach thetranslations, and he has the audacious effrontery tocontendthat he is being indicted upon articles, thetranslations of which arewrong and he must be acquitted. Do you really

File1-Tilak Trialbelieve that he wasserious in putting forward this defence? Hiscontention is untrue; thereis no proof whatever that there have been anymis-translations here. I donot know whether you have dictionaries, or wouldlike them.I can give you chapter and verse for the words putforward by the translator. I can give you in eachinstance the pages wherethe expressions adopted by the Translator's officeare to be found, Whatare Mr. Tilak's contentions? That king should not becapital K, Well,let him have a little k. Killing is just killingwithout any feeling. Heobjects to the word assassination. Can Mr. Tilakbenefit if I will allowhim the whole of his objections to the translations,eighteen words in allout of-I have, not counted the number of words inthe articles impeached-eighteen words in all are disputed ! And he has theeffrontery to call them' the distortions of the Translator's office ', Itis a word that should neverhave been used unless he intended to carry thesuggestion to its logicalconclusions by proving by his own translations thatthe translationsare wrong, otherwise he should not have used thewords distorted. It isnot a question of having revenge. That is to saythat they were deli-berately concocted for the purpose of ruining himand helping the Prose-cution. Think of the absurdity of the thing! Ifthere was a shade of truth in

File1-Tilak Trialthat it would result in the immediate detention ofthese misguidedpeople in the Translator's office who wereresponsible for such a thing. Itwould mean their ruin for life and their dismissalfrom the office. Andwhat for ? Does he contend that there wasill-feeling between Mr. Joshiof the Translator's office and himself? Does hesuggest that there isany cause for ill-feeling between himself and Mr.Joshi to give a sardonicperversion of these articles ? Give him the benefitof the doubt witheffect to these 18 words and just for one moment letus see what willhappen.

His Lordship: — I was going to ask whether it wouldbe any advantageif we retire earlier and return at 3 p. m.

Advocate General: — I am quite willing to go on now.

His Lordship: — I have no desire to hurry you, but Iwould just liketo have some idea when you are likely to finish.

Advocate General: — ^Your lyordship is well awarethat there is agreat deal to explain but I hope I shall be able toclose my remarks today.

His Lordship: — By this evening.?

Advocate General: — I earnestly pray so.

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship: — We will rise now till 3 P. M.instead of 3. 30. P. M.

185

Advocate General^ continuing his address aftertiffin said: Gentlemenof the Jury, you have a list of the words upon whichthe accused relies, ashaving been merely mistranslated, and also of thewords which he allegesare distorted. And I ask you to remember hisaffectation of indignation atwhat he calls distortions. I say with no hesitationor fear of contradic-tion that it was an expression for which there wasno reason whatever. Itwas introduced for the purpose of finding fault withthe Translator's office,to which Mr.Joshibelongs.lt failed because Mr.Joshiwas not the Translatorof these two articles. Mr. Joshi's evidence was notcontradicted, and itwas shown that not a single point could be made byMr. Tilak. I amcontent for the sake of peace and the saving of timeto give him thebenefit of those eighteen words which he says oughttoappear in the translations. I don't care one atomwhere they appear. If yoirhave the industry to go through the two articles, inwhich it is alleged themistakes have occured, I venture to predict that atthe end of a long andtoilsome task you will find that there is not one

File1-Tilak Trialsingle material syllablein the translstions w^hich require amendation. Ifthat be so what doesit matter whether, as Mr. Justice Strachey says(Reads) . Whether thereis some palpable alteration or amendation necessaryor advisable, it doesnot affect the question of the general tenor of andcharacter of thesearticles. I pass on then to what seems to me to bethe next point putforward by the Accused which we know his Lordshipwill tell you, there isabsolutely nothing in; and that is the point thatthere is no proof thatanything followed as the effect of these articles.If it be necessary, Iwill go through again and quote other cases whichhave been decided inthis Court. I will &percnt;\mq. his Lordshipreferences to them. They appear in2. Bombay Law Reporter page 294, and 304. and 8Bombay LawReporter page 421. You will find from these reportsand the one whichI have referred to at considerable length, namely22. Bom. That thisproposition can be adduced and I will state them atonce in order thati may be able, if possible, to redeem my promise orconditionalpromise of sitting down at 5. p. m. I will state myproposion now,and I think these authorities will support me. I amperfectly con-fident, that his Lordship will tell you there isnothing faulty withthe proposition which I am going to put before you,

File1-Tilak Trialand you willsee that nine-tenths of Mr. Tilak' s points areswept away. My firstpoint is this that the accused being Editor,Publisher and Proprietor ofthis paper is responsible for everything thatappears in it. I have alreadytold you that there can be no dispute upon the factsat issue in this case.They are all now admitted, but you must not supposethat because theyare admitted by the Accused, that they are to beadjudged to him forrighteousness. There was no use denying it. It wasproved and the lawmakes him responsible. That is my first point. Youhave his responsibilityfrom every point of view. My next point is that heis liable for all thatappears, and has appeared in that paper, and forwhat he meant to write,or for what he now says he meant to write. It is foryou to judge his style,and to judge of the effect that the meaning of thewriting has; not for himto say 'oh, I meant this, that, or the other thing.*We say it means whathe meant when he wrote those articles. From thosearticles you have to

/

185

adduce the meaning which it is your duty to adduceas jurymen, and it is^

File1-Tilak Trialidle waste of time for the Accused to say that youmust not judge of inten-tion from what he has written. I will not refer morein detail, as I do notwant to waste time, as his Lordship will tell youthat my proposition is-beyond dispute, and that the authorities from theearliest times, up to thedecision in the last case show that that is what youhave to do. It may be ashort and ready means of doing so, but there are noother means. You havealready had the decision of Sir Comer Petheram, andyou will find that thisproposition supported by Mr. Justic Strachey in thecase reported onpage 272, and 520, of Mayne's^Criminal Law. Again Isay, and in favotir o^the Accused, you judge his intention not by anysingle word or sentence, hntyou take both articles and the articles put in toprove intention, and fromthem and the mutual light they throw upon each otheryou draw your ownconclusions. My next point is this that inconsidering the law applicable tothis particular case, and the charges against theAccused, you need nottrouble yourselves to find out what the English lawis but I may tellyou that the Accused, though I do not know whetherhe did it intentionally,mixed the law in England as to the relations of theJudge and Jury.Yesterday he had the effrontery to tell you that itwas the universalpratice in England, and in these Courts to leave theJury the whole

File1-Tilak Trialquestion of law and fact ; he went on to say thatthe law in England wasJur\--made law, and you can deal with this case asyou please. Well, theonly excuse that I can think of for such aproposition being put before theCourt is that a somewhat similar proposition seemsto have been put forwardin Calcutta, I will not mention any name as he maybe alive and regret theposition he took up. Well Gentlemen, the ChiefJustice Sir Comer Petheram,promptly disposed of this by saying ' it is my dutyto instruct the Jury onthe construction of this Section.' It may be thatMr. Tilak has someslight recollection of this case, and only thatcould have justified him intelling the Jury what he did. It is absolutenonsense, it is a contradictionin terms, and Mr. Tilak, as a pleader of 28 years'standing, knows thatyou have to take the law from the judge, while youjudge of facts. Ithink Mr. Tilak began to realize about the end ofhis address, that hehad been a little wild in his proposition. There canbe no doubt if you lookat these Sections what is intended. According to theterms of theSection, ( Reads Sections ) it is the duty of thejudge to direct thejury upon all points of law, and it is the duty ofthe Jury to return averdict upon all points of fact. Then to say that ithas been the practicein the English Courts to leave all questions of lawand facts to the

File1-Tilak TrialJury, is a misrepresentation of facts. One begins todoubt the purityand loftiness of people who will try to miselad aJury in this way. Mr.Tilak is an old and experienced lawyer, surroundedby a heavybattery of Pleaders and Attorneys, and it isimpossible that the suggestionscould have been made dona fide. Believe me there isno foundationin law for that proposition, but I will tell you, asa matter of fact and as amatter of law, that you have to take his Lordship'sdirection. But I admitthat you are the sole judges of fact, I do notdispute that for one moment.The other point, as far as I have been able togather, was one which Ihave already admitted. I regret my inability tofollow Mr. Tilak' s subject

187

in full, but I think I have the main points of it.'The next point which hetried to make was that you ought to draw nopresumption against him-because there was no evidence as to any effecthaving been produced bythese articles. Again his I^ordship will tell youthat I am right in thepoint I am going to submit that the question ofsuccess or failure of theattempt, supposing you find that there was anattemtpt, is entirely im-,material. Having succeeded, his conviction would be

File1-Tilak Trialthe more certainand his sentence would be adequate ; if he failed,so much the luckierfor him, but to say that he must be shown to havefailed from physical orsome other obstruction not emanating from himself isa misunderstandingof the English language and the decisions of thejudges of law. I willnot repeat this again, having stated it clearly andhis Lordship will tell youthat success or failure is immaterial. You have onlyto look at the articlesto see if they come within the words of section124A. One other pointis this, the question of free speech, free writing.Well I have saidwhat I have to say on this point as representing theProsecution. I cansummarise all that I have said and desire to say onthis point. What thefreedom of the Press and freedom of speech is quiteclear by the verywords of the Section. I have read you the summing-upof Mr.Justice Strachey which shows that in the exercise ofthat freedom ofspeech and writing you may write what you like aboutthe legislative oradministrative actions of Government in whateverlanguage you like,make it as offensive as you like, but you stepoutside that, you step outsidethe explanation under 124A. Again it will benecessary for me to dealfurther on with this aspect of the case. I amconvinced that I am rightand his lyordship will tell you that I am right and

File1-Tilak Trialby itself all Mr. Tilak'saddress may well be wiped from your minds. This Ihave already told youbut I will mention it again that the existence of areal or fancifulgrievance is no defence whatever. You will find thatlaid downin the summing-up of the Chief Justice, now at home,

and here again I do not expect, I am not in theleast degree apprehensive, that I shall be told byhis lyordship that I amtelling you something not correct in law; and thereI submit is the wholediscussion of the grievances and necessity forreform, are past the markand are simply part and parcel of an 'address,directed to vilification ofGovernment and stirring of unrest in the cause ofself-defence. Thereis also another part of Mr. Tilak's defence that mayalso be swept awaybeing absolutely irrelevant. He says these articlesdid not mean what theycontained but we assume is that they did mean whathe wrote. He says theywere in reply to a controversy. We assume thatthough of course this is avery violent assumption. He says these were repliesto articles criticisinghimself and the Marathas whom in a loyal sort of wayhe claims to repre-sent and these articles were a contradiction orreply to the Anglo-Indiannewspapers. If the language comes within section124A he can defendhimself by saying 'these articles were writtenbecause A B & C. wrote

File1-Tilak Trialother articles. This is a controversy. I am goingfto resent it. My brain hasgot into such a state of confusion and imbecility,because from day today I have got information and at the end of theweek I accumulate this

188

information and I reply to the attack of theAnglo-Indian papers.' Thatis no defence and though I considered it unnecessaryfor him to go intodetails of the newspapers produced, I did notobject. As a matter of factyou will find that there is no justification for theallegation that theAnglo-Indian Press attacked him or his brotherjournalists, or the Natives,or the Congress, in any terms which called forviolent anger, and I donot care if they did. That is no justification. Ifit is true that therewas any such suggestion made about whipping bypublic sweepers, ofcourse it was most disgraceful. But if yon turn tothe real point, you¦will find that he did not produce some of thearticles in the original butread extracts from other papers, which were allegedto be extracts fromthe Asian and Empire, Neither of these papers isproduced in theoriginal. I did not know this at the time, and ofcourse it was not mybusiness to go into each of the newspapers without

File1-Tilak Trialknowing whetherthey were going to be used. As a matter of fact theAsian and Empirewhich are supposed to be the most offensive are notproduced in original,but are quoted by some paper, called, I think. TheGujarati. That isnot the way to prove articles. ( Having receivedfrom the Clerk of theCrown, the jP/^;^£'^r of 7th May) I think I am alittle inconsistent insaying that these matters have not been appearing,and I find that therewas an attack made on the Indian Press by theAnglo-Indian Press, butthey do not justify the writing of the incriminatingarticle. Tho. Pioneerof 7th May is referred to in the article whichappeared in the Kesarion May9. Now look at the words of this article (Reads *ifthe moral disease'down to 'heroic measures. ' j Now, what has he gotthere ? It is a com-ment directed to the state of things in the world atlarge. It is not direc-ted to Mr. Tilak in any shape or form whatever. Itrefers to the NativePress as a body and generally contends that if thismoral disease is tospread as it did in Spain then fReads down to'bombs.' ) Now takethe next passage. Of course, if Mr. Tilak likes tofit on the cap, I haveno objection. This is the cap ( Reads down to 'letus only ' to 'situation' jAt present Mr. Tilak is not in sympathy with theCouncil but if he wishesto-assume the Counciller's cap let him, if he likes.

File1-Tilak TrialWe have had Burkeand Mill quoted at each hearing. I do not think wehad Milton. ( Readsagain down to ' Congress moderate. ' j Well, Mr.Tilak is not a CongressModerate and the evidence in the case shows that heis an Extremist. I donot know if he is a Congress Extremist. The lastCongress disappearedunder Mr. Tilak's moderation. ( Reads down to ' thatits revenue. ' )There is one other part. fReads down to ' feebleminds astray, ' ) Nowwhat is there that any sensible man can object to.Is there a word therethat can justify the allegation that there weredisgraceful attacks in thePioneer which caused the great souls of the Kesarito swell in angerand show themselves in the words of the articlecomplained of ? I put itto you that the excuse is a falsity on its face sofar as the facts areconcerned, and even if it were true his I^ordshipwill tell you that I amright in saying that it would be no defence. I thinkI have put nine pointsbefore you and that exhausts all that I have toadvance in this case as tothe proper way in which you as the Jury shouldapproach the considerationof the facts of these points because almost all ofthem were made by Mr. Tilak

189

File1-Tilak Trialand there is one which remains which I will dealwith at once. Mr. Tilaksuggests that the onus has been laid wrongly uponhim in bringing himwithin the exemption terms of section 124 (A^ and153 fA) . That againGentlemen, is due to a faulty misapprehension of thelaw Statutory origin-al law. We are concerned only with the IndianStatute.' The Statutarylaw is to be found in section 105 of the EvidenceAct. That sectionsays that when a person is accused of any offencethe burden of prooffails or him, fReads section) . You have only toaccuse; here Mr. Tilak iscommitted on a charge. Therefore it is quite clearaccording to theterms of the Evidence Act that there has been nowrong placino- of theonus on Mr. Tilak's shoulder in this case- He ischarged with thisoffence and he says he is not guilty because hecomes under explanation2 of section 124A. On him lies the burden of provingthat he comes insome way under that protection. Then we have thedoctrine advanced ina number of different ways, Protean in their formbut all meanino- what Istated to you a short time ago, that the Accused wasentitled to write thesewritings because some one else had written articlesattackino- himand his party and his paper and that by readingthese articles in theheat of the discussion, or controversy as he calledit, between the pro-

File1-Tilak TrialBureaucrats and the anti-Bureaucrats; as if he wroteit by way of adviceto Government or by way of intimation of theexistence of defects in theGovernment, calling for reformation, or by way of adeclaration on hispart to those who agree with him in a preference fora particular form ofGovernment which is entertained either by the writeror his communityto which the writtings are addressed. Would thatjustify any lano-uao-ewhich he chose to use ? There is no sense in thearticle unless you carryit to that extent. It amounts to this, that in theheat of the controversyor because he wanted to obtain reforms of abuses, orbecause he wantedto give Government, intimation that if they did notgive some reforms*' We will give yon bombs " that he is entitled touse language whetherit comes under the Section or not. That is themeaning of his argument.'That you will find when you call back to your mindthe general tenor ofhis defence and you will find that this is his realdefence except thatextraordinary incident which took place yesterday ortoday-the idea ofself-defence ! Here again can you conceive anybodywith the faintestknowledge of law putting forward such a suggestionseriously that he wasentitled to write these articles, no matter what wastheir language, nomatter whether thev were included or excluded fromthe exceptions in

File1-Tilak Trial124 A, as he did it in self-defence. Would you liketo know what the rightof self-defence is. It appears in Section 96 andfollowing sections ofthe Penal Code. These are the rights f Reads section96 ) . This is theright that Mr. Tilak put forward in his defenceyesterday as justifyino-his action. I think the accused must have laughedwhen he left theCourt after having put forward that defence to thinkthatit was received in silence instead of Homericlaughter. He saysthe articles were written in the heat of controversyor as giving adviceor expressing a preference for certain forms ofGovernment, entertained bythe Accused and his community or people to whom thearticle was addressed.That was his opening part, when he went into adescription of the manner

190

Tie collects his information for discussing affairsin his newspaper whichoccur from week to week. It is a repetition of thesame point over and overagain to the point of exasperation. Of course theanswer is that it is toopreposterous a claim tobe just by any law; opposedto common senseand opposed to public interest and the safety oforder at large. It wouldresult in this ludicrous absurdity that you can have

File1-Tilak Trialsuch a thing aspatriotic sedition. "I am an editor; I want reforms,if you don't givethem I will bomb you and that is not seditionbecause of my motive.My motive is high*'. Just turn back your memory towhat he saidon motive and intention. The two things are totallydifferent. Buthe jumbles them together and you will find that hesays something tothe effect that, if his motives and his intentionsare pure, he can commit anykind of crime he likes and it cannot affect him. Ifhe sfoes throusfh lifemuch longer with those views in his mind and actsupon them, he will findhimself in a very much worse predicament than he isnow. You see theIndian Penal Code does not say anything aboutmotive, it does not enterinto it. You may enter into a crime with a very highmotive but voii willbe punished all the same. The question of motive maycome into consi-deration and help in reducing the sentence. It isone of those propositionsthat one may hardly suppose he was serious, inputting it forward. Ofcourse one can give any number of instances to showthe fallacy of thatargument that because your motive may be good or notcriminal, you mustbe excused. Why, Gentlemen, if this were so youwould be patting thegreatest temptation that humanity could be subjectedto. The taking oflife for the purpose of preserving your own; what

File1-Tilak Trialwill be the result? You willbe brought up in Court, I don't think you wiU behanged, although you maydeserve to, but you will certainly be transportedfor life. It is no excusethat you have commited an offence from motives ofself-preservation.And I think one of the most horrible illustrationsof that doctrine is to beiound in a case which, I have no doubt, some of youremember. It isa case v/here some men were ship-wrecked, and topreserve the lives ofsome the rest were sacrificed to provide food. Themotive might havebeen in the minds of these, of their ownself-prcFervation, I neednot labour the point any more ; his Lordship willtell you that it is nodefence whatever, from the fact that you might havehad good motivesfor committing the crime. Of course I am assumingevery thing in favour ofthe Prosecution, that these articles do absolutelycome within the Section.I will just revive your memory that Mayne points outthat it is a pointoutside the law that you may commit the offence oflibel and libel a manfrom the highest possible motives. That will nothelp you, if you havecommited the offence of libel; motive or no motive,you will be punished,And otherwise the whole of Mr. Tilak's arguments onthe points ofmotive and intention involves the absurdity that aman may commit theoffence of patriotic sedition. You may show the

File1-Tilak Trialcircumstances in which youhave written the article, ^jhioh. prima-facie comeswithin the sectionl24A.You may show circumstances which might go to reduceor modify thesentence. That is totally different to proposingthat it is in defence of thesubstantive charge. He refers us to Mayne, and youwill find at page

191

244, (Reads from ' intention must not be confounded'to 'for spite')That disposes of the lengthy argument involving muchconfusion of ideasbetween motive and intention.

We come back now, Gentlemen, to a very shortconsideration of Mr.Tilak's contentions with regard to intention,whether it can be inferred bywhat he calls fictitious means. He suggests that itis an exploded doctrine,and that it is a very fragile means of arriving at aconclusion. Now whathe calls an exploded doctrine is the doctrine thatyou infer a man's inten-tions from what he has said, or done, or written.Well, I don't knowwhether the explanation itselt is to be found in theBengali Bombs. It is adoctrine which stands to this day supported by allauthorities except Mr,Tilak. Some of the more prominent judicialauthorities I have given, and his

File1-Tilak TrialLordship will tell you that it forms a safe guide.There are cases in whichit would be unsafe to infer a man's intentions fromwords written or spok-en. Mr. Tilak says that the circumstances in thiscase point to the con-clusion that he receives information from week toweek, and bases his.remarks on information received from India andEngland which led himto indite these articles for the particular purposewhich I have mentioned.That is his idea of there being in this casesurrounding circumstances inexistence, which entitle him, no matter what hislanguage may be, to saywhat he likes. This is his chorus from beginning toend. "No matterwhat my language is, the Penal Code does not applyto me, and you mustreturn a verdict of not quilty.' This is a fallacywhich runs through the wholeof his argument. You are bound, as you are entitled,to look into all the cir-cumstances surrounding him; the time at which thearticles were writ-ten and the persons to whom they were addressed. Allthese things have, to be taken into consideration. Then you have toexercise these powers ofcommon-sense which Mr. Tilak says you must notexercise in this case.When you arrive at that step you must apply the law,and say whether inyour opinion the provisions of section 124A areapplicable to the case ornot.Mr. Tilak's argument is nothing but going round in acircle, a process

File1-Tilak Trialwhich has no end, aad will not enable you to reachany conclusiou at all.You will find, I am right wben^I tell you, that hisargument goes back tothis. He says 'it does not matter what I say or dounder Sections 153 A and124 A, if you find that my intentions are lawful. 'That is not the law,as I am confideat you will be directed by the Judge.There is one morapoint. Mr. Tilak says there is no evidence beyond ofcourse what youcan draw from the wording of the Section, there isno evidence fromwhich you can infer intention except the card. Well,so far as he is con-cerned, I cannot carry that matter any further. WhatI rely upon for theCrown is this that the card was found in Mr. Tilak'shouse in a drawer.Look at the circumstances connected with it, and hisconnection withthe articles. It is entirely a matter for yourconsideration. I am unwill-ing to unduly press the matter, if you think or ifhis Lordship thinks thatit is a matter that should not be pressed, butunduly press it I will not.But that it is a matter of relevance to the charge Ithink nobody candispute. You see that it is certain in thecircumstances in which thesearch was made that it was impossible for anybodyto have put that cardthere for the purpose of implicating Mr. Tilak. Itis not suggested that

File1-Tilak Trial

192

there was anybody who did put the card there. lafact so far as I caaunderstand Mr. Tilak practically admits the card isin his own hand-writing. That being so there is no effect in sayingthat the card was in-itialled by Mr. Tilak's manager and was in thecustody of the police eversince it was found. Now I ask you to recall Mr.Tilak's attempt to cross-examine the Police 0£&cer. Did it not strike you asa suggestion thatthe card was found behind his back? Does it notsuggest that somebodyput it there behind his back? I put it to you thathe had not made up hismind at first what course to pursue with regard tothat card, and when hefound it was absolutely futile to attempt to avoidthe fact that the card wasfound in his premises and in his drawer and amongsthis other papers. Heknew it was impossible to accept any defence. Andwhat was his explana-tion ? That he thought it necessary to procure bookson explosives for thepurpose of considering the definition of explosivesin the Explosives Act. It isforyou to say what reliance you can place on thisstatement having regard tothe manner in which he has apparently approachedthis grave question. But,Gentlemen, the man who can write as Mr. Tilak haswritten, passages fuornwhich I am going to refer to again on behalf of the

File1-Tilak TrialProsecution, this inci-dent of the finding of the card is looked upon withsufficient suspicion tosuppose that it is particular evidence to come tothe conclusion as to theintention of the writer of these articles which havebeen impeached or asthrowing light upn them. Our suggestion is that thewhole object of Mr.Tilak's articles was to threaten the administrationand to threaten Gov-ernment, that if they did not grant the demands as aprice ofpeace, then bombs would follow. If necessary I shallgo throughthe chief points of the main articles and prove thatthose con-tentions are correct. If the general contents of thearticles are suf-ficient to prove that there was an attempt toterrorise the Government,by threats open or concealed, to the effect thatbombs will be thrown, I putit to you whether the effect of the existence ofthis card is not a fact to betaken into consideration in considering the actionof the Accused. As Isay if this is not a threat what is it ? You findthis man by his words andarticles repudiating the bomb ; but whilerepudiating the bomb and itsuse he tells Government that unless they guaranteereforms bombs willcontinue. He says Government has had a salutarywarning andwhen you find a card about explosives in that man'sownhandwriting I must leave you to come to the

File1-Tilak Trialconclusion. NowI will refer to one passage in the article of June9th. It may be neces-sary to go into this article in a little moredetail, but I am going to showyou a passage upon which I rely as showing how muchtruth there is inthe suggestion when he repudiates bombs. Turn topage 3 and youwill see (Reads "The bomb is some form of knowledge"down to "acharm and an amulet.") This is the gentleman whorepudiates bombs.You will see throughout the whole of the rest of thearticle and the otherarticles to which ,.I am going to refer there is notonly a veiled but adistinct threat to Government that to use the wordsof Exhibit 64 (Readsfrorn "temporary" to 'bomb has come to stay.') Hereagain I am subjectto his Lordship's directions. If his Lordship thinksI ought not to makeany lengthy reference to that article I will not doso. But mind you it is

193

his exhibit and I understand him to say that itrepresents his "views. Butthat is for you to decide. You will have to considerwhether you willmake use of it or not. But remember the accused putsit inas part of his defence. If he disapproves of bombswhy write of them

File1-Tilak Trialas of " more the form of knowledge, a kind ofwitchcraft a charm andan amulet." Then there is another article which youwill find of 2ndJune. You will be asked to sap this is prohibitoryof bombs. This isthe man who is desirous of supporting Government andobjects to thetaking of life at all. Look at the 4th line of thearticle headed "Secret ofthe Bomb" (Reads from "the murder of Mr. Rand" downto "of Bengal.")It is curious how that Rand murder fascinates thePoona writers. Nowread those following sentences and if you can givecredence to *^Mr.Tilak's protestation that he abhors murders give himthe benefit. (Readsdown to "intention.") That is the passage, I say, Icannot conceive anyperson actuated by feelings of humanity, andclaiming to be a humanebeing, could have written. He is praising twodastardly murders andthe mnrderers are submitted to promotion ordistinction accordino- ashe thinks superiority in point of skill and daring.Where was the skilland daring in connection with the Poona murders. Twomidnio-htassassins, creeping in the darkness to kill theirunsuspecting victims.Where was the skill, where was the daring in thesewickedmurders? I had intended to avoid language of passionaltogether because Iwas Satisfied that Mr. Tilak's own language carriedwith it its own damning

File1-Tilak Trialconviction. But having the misfortune to sit throughthese ravings frommorning to morning, from day to day, it isimpossible to cast from one's mindthe effect which such doctrines produce in the mindsof any who haveto deal with him. These are two of perhaps thechoicest quotationsfrom the articles which go to show what was workingin his mind. Iam not touching the point. I promise only to showthat the Prosecutioncannot be charged with being unreasonable, when theysay that when aperson is capable of formulating and putting intoprint such things youcannot wonder if suspicion is directed to him whenyou find such enthu-siasm for the bomb and when you find in his house,in his own handwriting, a card by the means of an address on whichbe will be able toprocure bombs. There are many other paragraphs thatgo to show thathe revelled in the thought of the cheapness andeconomy with whichbombs can be manufactured. fReads from "the verysystem of adminis-tration " down to "beneficient act. " ) So you maybe a beneficentmurderer in the opinion of Mr. Tilak, though I hopenot in the opinionof those who follow him. f Reads " in the case ofthe Poonaites " downto 'terrorists,') He slurred over the fact when hewas reading the articles,but now when I have read the whole of that passage,and the enormity

File1-Tilak Trialof it occurs to you, can you wonder that this isground for the Prosecu-tion that the discovery of the card is significant,and that you musttake it into solemn consideration before you part?So much. Gentlemen^for the intention to be drawn from the card, thecircumstances and fromthe arguments about the presumptions which are to bedrawn from thewritings. I have nothing further to say in referenceto these discussionsoi motive and intention. As to the question of therelative rights of Judge

194

aud Jury, you have my views and the authorities Ihave mentioned. Itis quite untrue to suggest that you are the judgesof the law in thiscountry. I have nothing further to add on that pointto what I havealready stated. I think that I have dealt, shortlyperhaps, but none theJess I hope effectually with all the other argumentsaddressed to you upto the last day but one.

Now on the 17th of July there was a fresh opening ofprecisely thesame points as had been commented upon before and Ihave abouttwenty pages of notes all referring to the samesubject, in different words,one portion of the reference being what struck me as

File1-Tilak Trialbeing a somewhatnnfortnnate one. He referred to Lord Morley,speaking of him as PunditMorley, to show that Lord Morley and Mr. Tilak wereof one mind. — greatminds arriving at the same conclusion. Butunfortunately for Mr. Tilak whosays it is not sedition for him to say, "You cannothave repressive mea-sures," that is not Lord Morley's view. I onlyallude to this incident of the¦Civil Service dinner, which seems to have bad somegreat attraction for Mr.Tilak, to point out whatever views Lord Morley mayhave expressedabout the desirability of extending liberal reformsto India. He had toapprove of the repressive action of Government,"repressive" or " op-pressive " I don't care which. He quotes from LordMorley prayingthat Lord Morley may not approve of the repressiveaction which consti-tutes the burden of Mr- Tilak's song. Just look atthe ludicrous absurdityof Mr. Tilak's argument. Bombs are to be thrown, anyamount of distur-bances of the peace may take place, but Governmentmust not take anyaction. What is Government here for except tomaintain order? And thenhe says if you maintain order you are entering upona course of repres-sion, brought upon you by a number of fiends, orevil geniuses who comeupon you every ten years! This means a proof ofrepression. 'And if youdo not stop it, we warn you, bombs will continue.'

File1-Tilak TrialPut it into plain languageand still you are asked to say that that is notsedition. Well if it is not, thesooner the law is altered to reach the person whohas these convictionsthe better for all parties concerned, and the longerwill the anarchy bedeferred which will certainly come upon us. Well Iwill put it in this way.If the conduct and policy of Mr. Tilak and his partymeets with the ap-proval of any Court of Justice then the flood-gatesof anarchy will beopened and disaster must follow as night follows day. Well I will pass overMill, and Blunt, and Amos, and other authors quotedby Mr. Tilak onRepresentative Government in the various extracts hehas read to you, ashaving no concern with the question that you have toconsider, and nowI can faithfully say that I have come to the lastpart of Mr. Tilak'saddress, which was based upon Section 153 A. Withregard to Section153 A. I do not propose to take up the time of theCourt. It has neverbeen the subject of any authoritative decision thatI am aware of ; butit really does not matter, because the wording ofthe Section is perfectlyclear, and it is fiction, pure and simple, for himto say that he does notunderstand the charge. He is charged with creatingill-will between twodifferent classes of his Majesty's subjects. Thewhole cf the argumentshave been to show that there are two hostile camps

File1-Tilak Trialpro-Bureaucrats andanti-Bureaucrats, and then for him to pretend hedoes not know what the

195

charge means! I leave him to you to dispose of. Tosay that you can-not charge a man under Section 153 A, and also 124 Ais again to com-pletely misunderstand the law. There may be twocompletely differentoffences, or joint-offences under 153 A and 124 A.The charges are prac-tically well-framed, and practically plain, and itis contended wilfully toshow otherwise. Personally, Gentlemen, I do not carevery much whathappens to the charge under 153 A. For this reason,thatif there is a conviction under 124A. well, it wouldnot beworth while bothering much about Section 153 A. Itwould not affect thecase one way or another, and therefore I feel theless anxiety in dealingwith the charge under that section. I hope, I haveput before theCourt with sufficient intelligence as to be clear asto my meaning of thedifferent points of the case as presented by theProsecution and theAccused, and nothing remains for me but a word ortwo about the im-plicated sections as throwing light upon thesituation. I accept the whole

File1-Tilak Trialof what my learned friend Mr. Inverarity stated inhis opening and I willsubmit to you and to the Court that it is obviousfrom the wording of thearticle "The Country's misfortune," that the wholepolitical situationin India which it is said has resulted from (Reads"the obstinacy andperversity" down to "rebellious path." J Gentlemen,I do not propose tofollow the offensive attitude taken up by Mr. Tilakin his numerousreferences to Russian history, the reasons of theintroduction of the bombinto Russia &c. I am not certain what the factswhich would be neces-sary to be placed before you, are. FortunatelyRussia does not require tobe defended by Mr. Tilak, but the truth is exactlythe opposite ofwhat Mr. Tilak represented it to be. May I just saythat the realhistory is opposed to Mr. Tilak? It was not the bombwhich forced thegranting of reforms, and the establishment of theDuma; the bombreduced a number of privileges which were granted.Any body whoknows anything about Russia's modern history willtell you so. But Mr.Tilak's party uses this as showing that bombs forcedthe granting ofreforms in Russia, and you must follow the examplehere. Whether he isright or wrong there can be no question that hisdoctrine is subversiveto the Government, but the whole object of all thesearticles is to show

File1-Tilak Trialfirst of all that it is due to the action of thewhite Bureaucracy inIndia that certain young gentlemen inBengal-gentlemen is the gentleeuphemism for bomb throwers-have become "^turnedheaded'' and takento bomb-throwing. That is held up for the public,who have the mis-fortune to read these papers, as being the course tobe adopted. This isthe way that reforms are to be obtained fromGovernment, the obstinatewhite Bureaucracy. Now read down a few sentenceslower, and you willfind all these horrible sentiments being announcedbroad-cast throughoutthe country, and he says that the only mistake youcan make in throwino-bombs is to throw them at the wrong people. Throwbombs by all means,but throw them straight. (Roads to "in place of Mr.Kingsford.") If ithad hit Mr. Kingsford it would have been all right.Don't make anymistake, and you will win the approval of Mr, Tilakand his followers.(Reads down to "official class.") If this is notlanguage of the mostviolently seditious character, and calculated tobring Government into

196

liatred and contempt, tell me what is. (Reads downto "officials.") Tryand exercise a little common sense when considering

File1-Tilak Triallanguge like this.Here you have it suggested that the Russian peoplepractise the throwingof bombs on account of the exasperation produced byunrestrained power.How much worse is the case of India, where theoppression is practised"by alien officers ? Throughout, the whole burden ofthe song in thesearticles runs in this strain. You have an alienGovernment; get rid of itas soon as you can. In other countries bombs arethrown, well selectbombs. Don't throw theni more often than you canhelp unlessyou can throw straight. Now we come to that muchdiscussed questionof the partition of Bengal. Do you know, does anyone know, what thereal greivance is as to the partition of Bengal ? Itwas only a redistribu-tion of boundaries. It was only a redistribution ofgoverning bodies.(Reads from 'since the partition of Bengal' down to'excesses' j. Well, youhave had these views before you, for your properconsideration. Was hejustified in saying this, as a^so the illustrationabout the cat ? I do not wishto repeat what has already been said on this. Thenwe have the next.sentence, f Reads down to "the country is alieu. orwhite Bureaucracy")f Reads down to 'cooled down,') Well that is adistinct libel on the Indiantroops who have been so lately distinguishingthemselves, and always willcontinue to distinguish thercselves in spite of this

File1-Tilak Trialallegation that the alienrule of the white Bureacracy has destroyed themanhood of the Indians.But so long as no abuse ean be directed against theGovernment or thewhite Bureaucracy they do not care how many insultsthey heap on theirown countrymen, I read this to show you how utterlyreckless they are intheir abuse. Go three or four lines further down,and you have the alienintroduced again (Reads down to "exasperated." j Letthe experiencedleaders each devise to keep disaffecticn withinbounds as far as possibleand conceal it as far as possible (Reads 'but it isimpossible' down to"bounds") But people willfReads 'remain perpetuallyin slavery." j Thisis represented to be the cause of unrest f Readsdown to "white officialclass", j Then comes the passage (Reads down to "intheir own hands" jIs not that attempting to bring Government intohatred and contempt?f Reads down to "self-interest.") By theself-interest of Government Indiawill be the poorer (Reads down to "thatimpression.") That is an untruthto begin with, and directed to the suggestion thatevery Englishman inIndia is posessed of the right of free speech overthe Hindus, and thenis the suggestion at the bottom of the page (Readsdo^vn to "horribledeeds.") The next passage is one in which it is saidin reference to Mr.Gokhale (Reads down to "in the presence of the

File1-Tilak TrialViceroy".) That is thehint about bombs. Then again you have a passage withregard to the effectit would have on the minds of the Maratha-speakingpeople (Reads "asyou sow, so you reap,") Then (Reads down to"sedition.") This suggeststhat this is the action which Government is persuing(Reads to " commonhuman nature", j So you have a further illustrationof what Government isdoing and the oppression practised by it, and theeffect of that oppression.Then I pass over some of the sentences that followas they do not appearto me to call for very serious attention and we cometo this ('Reads "therule of the autocratic'' down to "unbearable to thepeople ") ; and then as

197

to the remedies f Reads down to "accomplished") .That is what you are todo. Put the spoke in the wheel of the administrativecar, then you will getyour desires accomplished (Reads down to "certaindegree.") Then youhave that curious illustration of a man wanting togo somewhere andgoing in the opposite direction. fReads down to"places") Now take therest of the article, Gentlemen, which is a very longrigmarole and I put itto you that the general effect of the rest of thearticle is an allegation that

File1-Tilak Trialthe outrages were the result of an unpopularGovernment, and that theoppression of Government will increase inconsequence of such outrages,and that the crisis has been caused by the (Readsfrom unrestricted autho-rity" down to "certain occasions.") Again you have asuggestion thatthe Government f Reads "have driven people to theclimax. ") Then thearticle while pretending disapproval of the outragesimputes them toGovernment and says ( Reads from " reform is" downto *' respon-sibility ".j I have given a fair construction of thewhole article.Now then take shortly the second article of 9thJune. I have alreadyreferred to the article of 2nd June 1908. This isheaded " TheseRemedies are not Lasting " and is the secondincriminating article.There you have the Government described as enteringupon a campaign of'restriction' and 'repression' or of 'opression', Idon't care what the termis, and Government is liable to these demoniacalattacks every five or tenyears. It is sufferring from one of these attacksnow, and is entering upona series which is supported by Lord Morley himselfas shown by the Man-trikas ( Reads from "Seeing that these " down to "bomb in Bengal. " )What is the meaning of this, Gentlemen?Thatbecauseofthe cases of violenceand murder that have taken place throughout thecountry, the Government,

File1-Tilak Trialwhich is responsible for the saftey and welfare ofthe country and its citi-zens, takes steps to put a stop as far as possibleto these acts of violence,Government is represented as entering upon afiendish scheme of repres-sion in consequence of a damnable decision. Therecan be no question thatthe Government is accused of a policy of repressionwhich suggested com-ing destruction. Of course that may mean nothing. Itreads as a covertthreat of mutiny. Whether ft was intended so or not,I cannot say. Butread the words and put what construction you canupon them. (R.eads from"seeing that Government" down to "authorities.") Ifthat is not a veiledthreat of coming mutiny I confess I cannotunderstand what is. Now youhave these differences in the mind of the man whoobjects to bombs but whothinks that between the Bengali bombs and the bombsknown to Europethere is all the difference between heaven andearth. The Bengali bombs arethe heavenly ones and deserve to be sung of, and theRussian bombs areearthly bombs and deserve to be consigned to anotherplace. The Bengalibomb is due to a crisis of patriotism. This is in anarticle which Mr.Tilak told us the other evening has a spice ofhumour. Perhaps I shall comeacross the humour directly. This class of articleshows the humour ofwhich Mr. Tilak is capable. (Reads from "theBengalis are not anarchists"

File1-Tilak Trialdown to "but to the second.") Well you have a causeof patriotism, andapproach the Government with it in the shape of abomb, and you will getyour desires. The Bengalis are not anarchists, theyhave brought intouse the weapons of the anarchists, that is all andthen we have those curious

198

distiuctions between the classes of bomb-throwers (Reades down to "theKing of Portugal") How can any man in his senseswrite this articlewithout showing what he is meaning to do frombeginning to end (Reads to"resort to violence.") Heavenly bombs, and earthlybombs ! One or theother must fail or succeed in their object. Let uscarry out the samprinciple in India ! Then, Gentlemen, you have along passage which Ithink I can put into shorter language than his.There is a remark madewith regard to the dis-armament policy of theBritish Government and thedis-armament policy followed by the tyrannicalGovernments of Europe.fReads from "even a savage race" down to "castratinga nation." jCall it emasculation if you like, f Reads down to"Moguls") That is oneway of expressing the deficiencies of Government, fReads down to"military strength. "J Is not this a direct

File1-Tilak Trialincitement to the thirty crores ofpeople of India that they should rise in their mightand destroy the Englishtroops who cannot possibly withstand them any morethan theMahomedans did for more than twenty five years atthe outside? This is asuggestion that the English troops can no moreresist the might ofIndia'^for more than twenty five years at theoutside, than the Mogul troopsdid ( Reads from " as compared " down to " militarystrength. " )Then follows a part of the article the real meaningof which is easily drawnfrom the language itself, namely f Reads " theEnglish Rule will not lastin India even a quarter of a century after that.")Then we have f Readsfrom " Imperial sway'' down to "permanent." ) Butowing to the bomball this is altered now, and yet this is thegentleman who disapprovesof the bomb f Reads to "to this time."j That is whatwould havehappened before the advent of the bomb. We couldhave grumbled butwe would have got nothing. If the Mahomadens hadruled the countrylike the British they would have had to resort torepressive measures, asthe British Government has done, to which thetyrannical Rulers of Europedo not resort, and to which the savage Mohamedansdid not resort, namely,the disarmament of the people. That is all put astop to by the coming ofthe bomb, and as a Government, ycu know that the

File1-Tilak Trialtyrannyis beginningtobefelt.fReads from "unless a beginning" down to"detective Police." j Thenyou have this eulogy of the bomb (Reads 'the bomb ismore' down to 'anamulet.') Then follows a description of the usewhich can be made of it,the possibility almost of the fact of its beingmanufactured beingdiscovered, and the fact of its being able to bringpressure upon theGovernment to grant the reforms required. (Readsfrom 'Government haspassed the Newspapers Act, with a view to stop theprocess of awakening'down to "disposition." j And then we have, (Readsdown to "Swarajya.'')That is what I said, "Swarajya or bombs." If youdon't give Swarajyaor if you don't make a beginning to give it, wewon't stop the bombs.

Advocate Ge7teral: — May I ask whether yourlyordship proposes to goon and finish this case to-ni^ht?

His Lordship: — I propose to do that. The Jury willfind refreshmentsdownstairs; we will have an interval of twcntvminutes.

199

The Advocate General fContinuing after tea J said:-Ido not proposetooccupy'yourtime with any remarks on the articles

File1-Tilak Trialofthe 12th May ExhibitE. or of the 19th May. It is not worthwhile wastingtime. The only pointit is desirable to keep in mind is that the writerwhile showing the greatestsympathy with the Government, and feeling of thepeople in regard to thisdreadful case, advocates the bomb. There are only afew lines in thearticle of the 19th May that I want to draw yourattention to particularly.They are at page 2 ( Reads "the evidence requiredfor proving" down to"administrative system." ) And you have again areference made to theuncontrolled system of the administration. The wholearticle teems withexpressions that go to show the feehngs animatingthe writer and at page4 you will find (Reads from "there is no wonder"down to "day by day."^And in the article of 26th May, the next article,where the opinions of SirWilliam Wedderburn, and Sir Henry Cotton are alludedto, you have thisstatement attributed to Sir Henry Cotton. There itis, lie or truth. If itis true no evidence has been produced; thepresumption -therefore is thatit is a lie, and if so it must have been a liewithin the knowledge of thewriter of the articles. (Reads 'Sir Henry Cottonsays 'down to * theKing. ' ) Sir Henry Cotton said that, or he did not.If he said it I thinkwe should have had his discourse put before us inthe shape of telegramsand articles now that so many articles have

File1-Tilak Trialappeared. But having regard tothe character of the words, the presumption is thatit is absolute fiction.I hope that it is so. If it is only fiction and notfact it has a very strongbearing on the state of mind that actuated thewriter of this article, andI have done with them all. I think I have referredto the more pungentparts of the article on " The secret of the Bomb. "Now turn to page 2of the article (Reads ' that would improve ' down to' equally guilty. ' )And now. Gentlemen, there has not been a word saidin support, or anyevidence adduced to justify these two infamousstatements. Whatconclusion can you draw except that they areabsolutely without foundation,and if so then they show the spirit of intentionthat runs through thesetwo articles, one after another, as they all formpart of a series of weeklyarticles commencing from 12th May and going on to9th June 1908. And ifthese extracts which I have given you are notsufficient to show you whatthe spirit is that has been actuating the writer ofthese articles, well I amafraid there is nothing else we can put before you.I contend that if youlook at all these articles yon will find that theyare all influenced by thesame desire, the desire to bring the Government ofIndia into hatred andcontempt on the grounds of its acting with obstinacyand oppression. Thatis, obstinate in that they refuse, as they say, to

File1-Tilak Trialgrant reforms, and oppress-ive in that they pass repressive measures, as theysay, such as the Press Act

200

and the Explosives Act and that the Government ofIndia is at oncerepressive and opressive over attempting to maintainorder which it is its.highest duty to maintain,

I did not intend at one time to indulge in thelanguage of offence at all,because I was satisfied of the effect that thelanguage of the Accused wouldhave on all right-minded people. If I have been ledinto saying anythingconsidered by you or his Lordship not justified bythe language that I havelueen criticising, I am prepared to stand by anyrebuke that may be offered tome. Bat I cannot in my own mind think that I havesaid one word whichis not justified by the language which I have quotedto you. I do not pro-pose to speak further and must leave it in yourhands, agreeing for oncewith the suggestion of the Accused and asking you tolet nothing bear uponyour minds except what you have heard in this Court.Let no outside talk,or preconceived opinion affect your verdict in thiscase which should be basedentirely upon the articles, and by giving the bestpossible consideration to

File1-Tilak Trialthe statements and arguments advanced by theAccused.

His Lordship theii Summed tip the case.

THE TUUOE'S SUMMING UP

AND

Charge to the Jury.

Gentlemen of the Jury, — I am afraid your patiencehas beensorely taxed during the eight days which this trialhas taken; andI do not propose to tax your patience tj any extentas the casefor both sides has been adequately put before you.Before sayinganything else I think that it would be the merestand idlest of pretencesto say that you had not heard of this case before orheard of the accusedbefore. I have no doubt that the case has beendiscussed by your friends inyour houses or in your hearing. I feel that I neednot tell you that it isyour duty to confine your consideration entirely inthis case to what youhave heard or read within the four corners of thiscourt. I have nodoubt you will not allow any passion or prejudice oroutside information toinfluence you in the least in coming to a decisionin this case. I hear withgreat satisfaction that the accused trusts you and

File1-Tilak Trialyour verdict. I ask you,gentlemen, to regard him as standing before you asone of your fellowsubjects merely. You shall give sympatheticconsideration to all that hehas urged and then come to a decision » and comingto that decisionreturn a verdict without fear or favour. One thing Iwould like to guardyou against, and th.ut is against giving any undueweight to the factthat the Crown prosecutes. There is nothing in thatto prejudice youagainst the accused or against the prosecution. TheCrown is the legi-timate prosecutor in all cases before the Sessions.There is nothingwhich ought to weigh with you or infiuence you inthe fact that theCrown prosecutes in this case. It is the duty of theCrown to prosecutewhen it considers, on its responsible legal officersconsider that the lawhas been transgressed. It leaves the Judge and Juryto decide whetherthe law has been transgressed, whether there hasbeen a breach of thelaw or not. The offences charged against the accusedare themselves of apublic or political nature and in order to guardagainst frivolous orfactious prosecutions started under those sections,the law guards andprotects journalists, publicsits and public speakersby providing that nosuch prosecution shall be started without thesanction of Government.That fact is the only reason why this sanction is

File1-Tilak Trialrequired for theprosecution to be started under these two Sectionswe have heard theaccused state that lower officers consider that asanction is a mandate.I do not think that the accused really intended thewords to be asuggestion to this court. It would be most improperfor any oneanywhere to send a mandate to you or to me which weare boundto obey. We are here to perform our duties. The onlymandatethat I obey and that you are bound to obey is themandate of ourconscience. My one desire has been to give theaccused a per-fectly free and fair trial. He has entered intoevery kind ofdiscussion from every point of view; and it ispossible thatthere were some things which were not relevant tothe case. But we

2 THE judge's summing UP.

lost nothing by giving the accused the opportunityto unburdenhis mind before you and to tell you his point ofview, his explanation ofhis conduct, of his writings and the sentiments towhich he has given ex-pression. Gentlemen, before I proceed further Ithink it would be as wellif you had a perfectly clear idea of what yourduties are and what my duties

File1-Tilak Trialare. The duties of a Judge are defined in theCriminal Procedure Codeand I will not take you through all those duties;but one thing a Judgehas to do is to decide on all questions of law, todecide the admissibilityof everything tendered as evidence and to decidewhat is for his owndecision and what is for that of the Jury. And thejudge's dicision on thatpoint is binding on the jury. A judge might in thecourse of his summingup express his opinion on any question of fact orany question of mixedlaw and fact. Then comes the duty of the Jury whichis defined in thenext section. (Here his Lordship read from the Codethe words of the section299 Cr. Pr. Code.) You have heard the view of theprosecution andyou have heard the view of the accused. Both haveaddressed you fully.I am entitled to express my own opinion. I amentitled to give you direc'tions. But the accused has expressed his confidencein you and I am goingto add to that responsibility by leaving theconsideration of the whole caseentirely in your hands. From my point of view thecase presents nodifficulty. The law is there. It is well settled lawnow. During the past tenyears cases have come before the Court and everycase has been mostcarefully considered and has been the subject ofimportant legal decisions.I do not propose to give you any law that has notbeen settled before. I do

File1-Tilak Trialnot propse to give you my own view of the law. But Iwill give you the viewof eminent judges who have had these cases beforethem and you will bebound to follow those views. The learned AdvocateGeneral has directedyou largely from the summing up of Mr. JusticeStrachey. With the excep-tion of a small slip which did not matter in theleast that summing up hasreceived the approbation of a full Bench which wasin that case presidedover by Chief Justice Sir Charles Farran. It hasreceived the approbationof the Privy Council. That judgment has beenfollowed in other cases inother High Courts and has been referred to withapproval. Quotationsfrom that judgment have been largely read to you andtherefore I will nottraverse the same ground again. But before weproceed you musthave a clear idea of the three charges on which youare trying theaccused. He is charged in the first instance underSection 124 A ofthe Indian Penal Code with regard to an articlepubHshed on May 12 (ExhibitC.) That is the first charge of sedition. And thatis the only 'charge withregard to the first article. The next charge isagain one of sedition underthe same section with respect to an article datedJune 9. The last chargeis under section 153 A and is one of excitingfeelings of hostility betweendifferent classes of His Majesty's subjects. Thatrefers to the same article.

File1-Tilak TrialSo you will remember that there are three chargesbased on articles whichare before you and which are marked Exhibit (J andD. If you will readthe words of the section which I believe are beforeyou, you will find thata great many of the supposed difficulties and agreat many of the con-siderations which have been urged will di^sappear.All you have to see is thatthese Sections are supposed to be a safe-guard or acheck against any one whoby SDcecli or writing or visible means does orattempts to do certain things.

THE judge's summing UP. «>

And what is more, he must not bring orattempttobring into hatred or con-tempt the Government established by law. There is noquestion now that theGovernment established by law and referred to hereis the British Government,or the English Government, whichever you like tocall it, that rules oyer thiscountry ; and no one must excite or attempt toexcite feelings of disaffec-tion , against that Government. Does the wordcontempt require definition anddoes hatred require definition? We have all of usour feeHngs;^ we have allof us our passions, and I dare say there has been atime in the life ofeach one of you, when you have felt hatred orcontempt for some one else.Disaffection has been much discussed, it is a

File1-Tilak Trialpeculiar word it is not usedas between two persons, it is always used more inthe sense as being appliedbetween subject and ruler. The explanation leavesyou in no difificulty. Theexplanations to the sections you must always bear inmind. They are in-tended to protect criticism of Government measuresand administrativeacts. Journalists have perfect freedom to discussmeasures of Government,to disapprove of them and to use forcible languageif necessary and to doevery thing which is legitimately honest in bringingbefore the public andthe Government the fact that their measures oractions are disapproved bya section of the public or by a particular speakeror by a particular journ-alist. He is entitled to urge every reason that hecan in forcible languageto show his views with regard to the administrativeor executiveacts of Government. Gentlemen, you must rememberthat nojournalist or speaker has any right to attributedishonest or immoralmotives to Government. The freedom of the press is,I haveno doubt, a most valuable right, you will be anxiousto protect thatfreedom as I myself would be. You will consider allthat accused hasurged with regard to the freedom of the press. Thelaw says however thatthat freedom should not be used to bring into hatredor contempt the Gov-ernment established by law or to excite feelings of

File1-Tilak Trialenmity. Barring that theliberty of the press must be protected. The press orpublicists are entitledto protection against any prosecution that savoursof persecution, and isentitled to come to the Jury and say "I have nottransgressed the legitimaterights of a Journalist." Section 153 A is a simplesection. You find thatwhoever promotes or attempts to promote feelings ofhostility betweendifferent classes of his Majesty's subjects comeunder that Section ^ readssection 153 A. I. P. Code. ) It only means that nosubject of the crownis entitled to write or say or do anything wherebythe feelings of one classshould be inflamed against another class of hisMajesty's subjects. I takeit that this is generally a salutary provision ofthe law for the purpose otpreserving peace between different classes ofsubjects of the Crown mthis country.

Leaving the sections under which the accused ischarged I will nowdraw your attention to two or three cases and tovarious judgments thathave been delivered in the Bombay High Court andother High Courtsin connection with similar cases. The first of thecases I am referringto is a case which has already been referred to bythe learned AdvocateGeneral and is known as the Bangobasi case. I willread you from 19Calcutta the summing up of Sir Comer Petheram in

File1-Tilak Trialthat case. He saysdisaffection means a feelings contrary to affection.In other words,

4 THE judge's St'MMING t'P.

dislike ( reads from the Judgment down to the words*' by them " ). Thelast sentence of the summing up is the mostimportant because that is thesettled law. ( Reads from " It is sufficient" downto "culculated"). Theevidence of intention can only be gathered form thearticles themselves.( Reads ) Then he goes on directing the Jur),- asfollows ( reads from" directions which " down to " enmity against theGovernment " ).That was I think in 1897 and I believe it wasfollowed by a case in theAllahabad High Court in 1898. That is the Judgmentdelivered by Sir JohnEdge and two other justices of the Allahabad HighCourt. Sir John Edgein that case after referring to Justice Stratchey'ssumming up goes on tosay ( Reads " it is reasonably obvious " down to "the intention of thespeaker or writer ' ' ) and then ( again reads " itis immaterial whetherthe words were true or false.") Then, Gentlemen ofthe jury, there are twocases which came before Sir Lawrence Jenkins when hewas presidingover the sixth Criminal Sessions in the the year1900 and I will tax your

File1-Tilak Trialpatience by reading one or two extracts from hissumming up whichclears the position most completely and gives you anidea of what thelaw of sedition is. (Reads from the "main positionof the section"down to " which have been considered " ) Then yonhave the defini-tion of the word attempt ( reads " attempt is apreparatory "down to "accomplishment"). With reference to theword 'attempt'gentlemen, you have to take it in the ordinarym-eaning which attaches tothe word 'attempt'. A man is supposed to attemptsomething which wouldbe the natural and reasonable consequence of hisact; if he fails he doesnot fail because he did not attempt but from othercauses. Whether hefails or whether he succeeds the Law says no attemptshould be made toexcite feelings of hatred and disaffecfion. As towhether any particularaction is an attempt it is for you to judge. Thereare the articles placed bythe prosecution before you. The prosecution saysthose articles arecalculated to excite feelings of disloyalty andenmity against theGovernment. I leave you to judge entirely theeffects of those articlesand it is for you to say whether the accused isright or the prose-cution is right. In doing so there are severalconsiderations which mustbe before your minds and to which I will referlater. Sir Lawrence Jenkins

File1-Tilak Trialsays '( Reads " for the purpose of determining "down to "to producemischief"). While judging the articles, from thearticles themselvesyou will remember that the accused has pressed youto take, into consider-ation the circumstances under which these articleswere written. By allmeans do so. Give the fullest effect to thesurrounding circumstances, tothe explanations he has given of them, which accusedhas urged and thensay whether the articles are seditious and withinthe purview of the lawor whether the circumstances urged by the accusedform any justificationfor his saying that it does not come within thepurvi<2W of the law.There are two other cases. I think it is as well torefer to one of thesecases. In the Punjab Law Reports reference to whichhas been made bythe accused ( reads ) so far it was read to you. butthe conclusion wasnot read to you. In that case it comes to this thata man ran afteranother with an axe raised over his shoulder. Whenabout four pacesfrom his intended victim he was stopped by someother person. He

THE JUGDE'S summing UP. 5

was charged with attempting murder and it is quitetrue as accused hadclaimed that he was found not guilty. I have looked

File1-Tilak Trialinto this case howeverand found that while discharged on this account hehad been convictedof attempting to cause gevious bodily harm under Sec511. The Courtsaid the accused might have intended to give alighter blow andtherefore we will not convict him of murder but wewill convicthim of attempt to cause grevious bodily harm. If aman runs afteranother man with an axe he does not do it for funand must be guiltyof some offence. Then, gentlemen, a great manyEnglish cases have beenreferred to, cases centuries old, cases that tookplace in other countries inother circumstances where the surroundingcircamstances were verydifferent. You have had numerous readings fromCounsel's speeches ofthose times. You have had numerous cases citedbetween the years1700 and 1800. A hundred years ago; take them, Isay, take them all ( Ifind that they are all collected in a book on thelaw of sedition by aBengali gentleman. ) Take all those cases. Take allyou were told aboutthe liberty of the Press. I go further and say as tothe accused, standbetween himself and any persecution of the nativepress. Judge thenative press with greater consideration than you dothe English Press. Itis a younger institution and probably moreenthusiastic; take the articlesread them and say what effect it produces on your

File1-Tilak Trialminds and if youthink these articles do not trangress the provisionsof Section 124 Athen you must return a verdict of not guilt.

What do these English cases lay down ? They lay downthis. LordEUenborough says: — ( Reads from " I am not prepared" down to" liable " ) Then in another case another judgesays; — ( Reads from" I am of opinion ", down to " liberty of the press" j And in anothercase again ( Reads from " you should recollect "down to " it is notsedition". ) Test the articles by the principleslaid down by great EnglishJudges. Let this be before you and let the addressof Lord Fitzgerald" You are the guardians of the liberty of the press" before you. If youthink the liberty of the press is not abused, andyou can only thinkso if you think that the articles do not transgressthe law: if youthink that the articles which are before you arearticles which are notcalculated to give rise to feelings of hatred andcontempt and disloyalty taand not likely to create enmity against theGovernment, theu the accu-sed is entitled to the benefit of that conclusion atyour hands. If on theother hand you think that the articles imputedbaseness and immoralmotives to Government: if you think they incite toviolence and disorder:and if you think the.=e articles are calculated to

File1-Tilak Trialconvey to the minds ofreaders that political murders are approved of bythe writer, then you willhave to consider the effect that they have on theminds of the readers. Ijoin with the accused in asking you not to be led bystray words, strayexpression and stray items in his writings. Give allthe weight that he asksyou to give to the fact that the Marathi language isa language in whichcertain expressions are wanting and that thearticles are written in highflown Marathi ; judge them as a whole and on theimpression created onyour minds in reading them as a whole. Ha\'ing leadthe articles, askyourselves what is the effect produced on yourminds. If the two articles

G THE judge's summing up.

Exhibits D and C which are called the incriminatingarticles, if these twoarticles in themselves contain sufficient materialsfor you to decidewhether what is written there amounts to an attemptto excite feelings ofhatred and contempt against the Governmentestablished by law in India,then you need not go further. If you have any doubtsyou are entitled tolook at the other articles to enable you to judge ofthe intention of theaccused. What was the intention of the accused ? Youmust go to the

File1-Tilak Trialarticles, expressions and the sentiments in theirordinary naturalmeanings. The ordinary meaning which is attributedto that particularform of language.

The accused had made complaints about thetranslations. Mr. Joshi wassubmitted to a long cross-examination in the box onthis point. It isfor you to judge of the impression produced on yourminds. It seems tome that Mr. Joshi was a man who gave his evidencewithout any bias oranimus whatsoever against the accused and he wentthrough the exa-mination with. a knowledge of Marathi which was acredit to himself asa Marathi scholar. He was prepared to givetranslations of the wordsand had his dictionary at his elbow. He seemed tohave given much timeto these articles. You have been told that they werenot Mr. Joshi's tran-slations. They were translations of the responsibletranslator to the HighCourt, who would not be the Translator andInterpreter to the Court unlesshe were an efficient man capable of translatingcorrectly. The ordi-nary rule of this Court is that where a document isofficially translatedby the High Court Interpreter it is accepted as acorrect translation.The accused has not attributed to the High CourtTranslator any animusagainst him, then why does he call thesetranslations distortions ? It

File1-Tilak Trialmight be that the spirit of the articles might belost in translations butyou have heard the accused take Mr. Joshi through along cross-exa-mination. He has explained to yon where themistranslations came in asalleged. I think that the fairest thing to do is toaccept the accused's trana-lations in every particular. As I have stated theauthorities are bound bythe official translations in this Court. Still manis liable to err and it ispossible that the translators some times err. It isquite open to the accu-sed to bring other translations before the Court. Hecould do so in anumber of ways. He could do so by submittingwitnesses for the prose-cution to cross-examination. This the accused did toMr. Joshi. Theprosecution asked one question which I thought wasnot necessary. He¦was asked to say whether the translations, whichwere not his, were correct.The accused taking advantage of Mr. Joshi being inthe box to cross-exa-mine him, Mr. Joshi has given you what he considersright and what heconsiders to be wrong. Accused has told you all.Well, for the purposeof this case accept all his corrections. I havetaken down a great manyof them:-Sorrov/ for pain, disgust for hatred,perverse for obstinate;violence for indignation; oppressive for repressive;manliness for man-hood; obstinacy for stubbornness; despotic forautocratic; fanatic for

File1-Tilak Trialturnheaded; despotic for tyranical &c. Well,gentlemen, I say accept thosecorrections. It may be that in reading the articleswith them they mayaffect yonr minds differently. If they do this, byall means give the benefitto the accused. When we read a book or an articleare we guided by the

HHE judge's summing UP. 7

expressions in the writings or are we guided by thesentiments? If you thinkthe translation is, as the accused Fays, distortedand unfair, substitutehis translations and then consider whether thesentiments that are expressedin these articles are sentiments that are diffrentfrom the sentiments thatare conveyed to your minds by the translator. Thenagain, gentlemen, injudging these articles you have to take intoconsideraton, as accused haspointed out, all the surrounding circumstances. Theaccused has told usthat he has a very large circulation, the largestcirculation, he said, so fatas Indian or Anglo-Indian papers are concerned. Allthat he has writtenwould be rea d by many of his thousands ofsubscribers and I suppose bylearned men, by Marathi scholars and also by peoplewho are notlearned and not intelligent and by people who arenot sensible oj ableto weigh matters for themselves. It may possibly be

File1-Tilak Trialread by people whohave no conception of political parties. You have toconsider what effectthese writings would have on those people and thensay whether if thosearticles read by a large and promiscuous body ofreaders, what wouldbe the effect on their minds. For you must rememberthat those readershave not had the adantage of 21 hours and 10 minutesexplanation whichthe accused has offered on those articles. Howeveryou may assume, if youlike, that these people knew the purpose for whichthese articles werewritten as explained by the accused. A great dealhas been said by bothsides as to intention and motive. The law withreference to intention andwith reference to the fact whether it is true or notis crystalised here(reads from Mayne's-" Since the crime" down to "thetruth of theargument.") Well gentlemen, we are here as Judge andJury to decidewether the writings of the accused have excited orwere likely to excitefeelings of harted and conten.pt and disloyaltyagainst the Government.Now is it possible to prove that by evidnece? If wecall one hundred menbelonging to one side, forinstace that of theaccused, they will say that thearticles do not produce any feelings againstGovernment, indeed theypromoted love to the Govrnment, One hundred men onthe other sidewould say the opposite. It would be impossible for

File1-Tilak Trialthe prosecution to brino-any evidence on this point. The true test you haveto apply is to look atthe various articles and judge of them asawhole,judge of the effect that thevwould have on your own minds in the first instance,judge whether they arecalculated to produce feelings of disloyalty andhatred against the Govern-ment, judge -whether languge like this is notcalculated to exciteHindus against Englishmen or Englishmen againstHindus. You judge itby your own common sense. One thing you must keepbefore your mind;violence disorder and murder can not take place bythe hand that does notentertain feelings of hatred, contempt and violentenmity twoardsthose who are responsible for the good Government ofthe country.If we have violence and murder they are the acts ofpeople who bearhatred towards the ruling classes. It must be so. Ifthese people haveproper feeling for the Government and for the peoplewho are mostresponsible for the safety of property and safety ofthe subjects, therewould be no trouble and no bomb-throwing. I havetold you I thainkthat the law does not require that the attemptshould be successful.The law does not require that the attempt should beto excite rebellion ormutiny or violence. The law is much stricter thanthat. The accused

File1-Tilak Trial


says "law may be harsh aud hard; stand between meand the law andprotect the liberty of the press." You have to judgethe accusedaccording to the law as it stands. It was not foryou or for me to judgewhether the law is strict or harsh. I am here toadminister it. You are hereto tell me whether he has transgressed it. We arenot judges of the law.We are not here to say whether the law is hard ornot hard. It isthe law of the land and it is the bounden duty ofevery subject to obeythat law in every particular, l^o motive, no honestintention can justifya breach of that law. Of course a man, if he is ahuman being, isalways actuated by some motive in doing an act; thatmotive maybeproper or improper; there may be some cases wherethese motivesbefore you are in doubt and where there may beprotestations of honestmotives. It may be interesting to read the articlesand then say whetherthese articles are consistent with the protestationsof the accused.That may be interesting but we are not concernedwith motives, butonly with what has been written. We are notconcerned wfth thetruth or untruth of the writings. The truth maysometimes be perverted.

File1-Tilak TrialTrue or not it is not for you to judge. You may lookat the articles andsay for yourself hovi far they are true but what youhave to do for theDurpose of this case is to read the articles and saywhether they amountto an attempt to excite hatred or contempt towardsthe Government,whether they are attempts to excite disaffection. Ifyou think that thesearticles raed by you are calculated to give rise inthe minds of readersto feelings of hatred or contempt against Governmentif you feel thatthese articles are calculated to engender feelingsof hatred and disloyaltyagainst Government, if you feel that these articlesare likely to give riseto disorder or violence, then it will be your dutyto consider whether thatis not a transgression of the law. In reading thearticles you must makeall allowances for oriental modes of thought ororiental modes ofexporession and language. Your first duty ought tobe, in fairnessto the accused, to try and put an innocentconstructive on these articles.If you can conscienciously say that these articlesare articles which arecapable of innocent construction and that they donot transgress thelaw that will be your first duty if you that theyare not transgressionsof the law as it is if you feel any reasonable doubtas to whether theaccused has transgressed the law, give him thebenefit of that doubt.

File1-Tilak TrialIt is his right to have the construction placed uponhis articles thatis most favourable to him. It is only when you areconstrained tosay that these are articles which we cannotconscientiously say, comewithin the purview of the law then you must come tothat decision. Youmust remember that expressions of crimes of violencemay be made forthe purpose of emphasising the real object of thearticle. Youmust not therefore be guided by a stray sentencewhich you mightthink is an incitement to violence or by anysentence which might betaken to mean disapprobation of the crimes underdiscussion. Gentlemen,the Crown prosecutes and the Crown has as much rightas a private indivi-dual to say "protect the Government from attacks orlibels which are likelyto lead people to entertain feelings af enmity anddisloyalty against it. TheGovernment as we have heard lately are fair game andby all means let Go-vernment measures legislative and executive besubjected to as harsh and

ti

THE JEDGE's summing UP. 9

uncompromising criticism as you like. There the

File1-Tilak Trialliberty of the press musthe protected. They may complain but we shall listento their complaintsbut that criticisms must be free from imputations ofdishonest motives andsuggestions of immorality and must be free from thetaint of languagewhich would be likely to engender feelings ofdisloyalty, enmity and hatredagainst the Government.

You must again bear in mind in favour of the accusedthat Governmenthas no right to say our subjects shall love us orshall regard us with affec-tion. A man is not bound to feel any affection forGovernment. They haveno right to ask it. A man may feel the utmost hatredand entire disloyaltytowards the Government but he must not express themor write them orspeak them in a manner which would be calculated togive a rise in the mindsof others to similar feelings. A man, if he likesmight write manuscriptsand carry them about in his pocket or keep them athis home, but he mustnot publish them. He must give no expression tothose feelings of enmityand disloyalty by writing or speech. Of course youmust remember that theaccused owes no duty to any body but himself. He isentitled io defendhimself in any manner he pleases. He is not underany obligation to proveanything. It is for the prosecution to prove thecase. The pro-secution has placed before you certain articles and

File1-Tilak Trialthose articles are com-plained of. Accused says " I am a journalist, I havetwo hundred paperslying on my table every week, I have to read, digestand write on thespur of the « moment! " That is argument which youhave to take intoconsideration. If you think he has written thosearticles on the spur ofthe moment you must take that into consideration. Ifa man on the spurof the moment and in haste writes a paragraph whichmay be construedas a paragrah that would come within the section youmustmake allowance for that. Give the amplestconsideration to the argu-ment that is urged by the accused. If you think hehas written these articleson the spur of the moment take that intoconsideration. The spar of themoment here commenced on May 12 and the bomboutrages took placeat the end of April. If you think that thesearticles which were writtennearly a fortnight after the occurrence could beconsidered to be writino-s onthe spur of the moment yor are entitled to take thatinto consideration.Then you are told " I did this in self-defence. " Icould understrnd'self-defence if some one pulled a man's nose and heboxed his ears. I couldmake allowances. But if some one pulls your nose andyou box the ears ofanother man how is that self-defence? According tothe accused the 'Pio-neer' attacked the native agitators and may have

File1-Tilak Trialsaid some things whichmight be quite improper. What is there to show thatthe 'Pioneer' is aGovernment paper? I am only expressing views whichstrike me as featuresin the case. I am leaving you free. Anything whicham saying to youwhich does not meet with your commendation, rejectit. I am simply sayino-that these are aspects of the case which presentthemselves to me. You arethe judges of facts. It is on your verdict that Irely. It is for you to say whe-ther the accused is guilty or innocent. I beg of younot to be influenced.If your views are views that coincide with anythingthat I have said, well and'good. If not, give prominence to your own views inthe matter.As the case hasbeen so long and as so many points of view have beenplaced before you


I think it is only fair that some of them should bediscussed. You must alsoremember that great number of matters were arguedbefore you and quotedto you and many extracts from books read, you mustnot allow yourselvesto be prejudiced against the accused by this. It maybe that appearingfor himself he identified himself with thosewritings. It is not any excusefor the accused to say " I have written seditiousarticles because somebody

File1-Tilak Trialelse has been wrting seditious articles for sometime.'' That is no excuse.I do not say that the accused said this. He simplysaid that he wrote ina similar strain to other people. It is not for usto say why these otherpeople were not prosecuted. Your duty lies inreading the articles and tellingthe judge whether in your opinion accused hastransgressed the law as itstands. Accused has told you that he was carrj-ingon an open constitu-tional fight. He has said that he has a God-sentmission, that his cause isthe cause of righteousness. If you think that thesearticles are writtenin furtherance of an open constitutional fight, ifyou think that thesearticles are written in furtherance of a God sentmission in the greatcause of righteousness, you are entitled to give thewhole benefitof that to the accused. Gentlemen! what is the theme? Whatis the subject of these articles — the advent of theBomb. Oneneeds no telling that in the case of a bomb theatrocity of the crimecan only be equalled by its cowardice. That is thesubject that h beingdiscussed. The murderer kills one man, a bomb maykill a dozen. It isasubject which every right-minded man ought toregard with horror.That subject is under discussion before you in thefive or six articles. Ifyou regard that subject as being argued in a propermanner, by all means

File1-Tilak Trialacquit the accused. Is the accused prepared to arguethat the bomb is alegitimate means of political agitation, and dothese articles convey to youthat meaning? In that case you will have to adjudgewhat the effectswould be on the minds of the readers. Accused hassaid that agitatorsare falsely charged as being responsible forbomb-throwing, and thereforehe has provocation. It is not for you to judgewhether agitators were orwere not responsible for that. But one thing wascertain. It was onlywhen feeHngs of hatred and contempt and disloyaltyand enmity againstthe Government are engendered in the minds of men —it is only whenthose feelings reach a most acute stage that theyfind vent in those deedsof violence. The matter has been discusssed beforeyou. "Tha cult ofthe Bomb" and the "Secret of the Bomb'' and "TheDouble Hint" arebefore you. And it is for you to judge whether thosearticles contain ex-pressions of approval at the advent of the bomb.

You have the bomb party just as you have the Liberalparty and theConservative Party and the National party. Mr. Joshitold us of certainparties existing but he did net mention the bombparty. It is onlywhen we come to the articles that this party isheard of. It is for you tosay whether that reference and the manner in whichit is made, are

File1-Tilak Trialcalculated to bring Government into hatred andcontempt. It is for youto say whether these articles before you arecompatible with a man whomerely discussses political problems and resentsattack. You were againtold gentlemen, a great deal about "I shall becharged with inuendoes andveiled attacks". Looking at the articles, gentlemen,is there much room

THE judge's summing UP. 11

ior inuendoes or veiling ? One thing you can sayabout the articles isthat there is a great deal of plain speaking.Whether that plain speakingis justifiable it is your duty to judge. Whether theeffect of these articlesis to make you believe that bomb throwing is aproper means forobtaining greater rights and privilege it is for youto say.

I would like to say that you must not judge of thearticles, merelybecause some of it may be written in what may beconsidered bad taste,every journalist may write as he likes. He is notbound to write in goodtaste. All he has to consider is that he must keepwithin the law.Now the article of the 12 th May 1908 which formsthe subject-matterof the first charge has only recently been read toyou by the learned

File1-Tilak TrialAdvocate General and I do not propose to read muchfrom any of thearticles at this hour. Take for instance the firstarticle ( Reads: bottom ofpage 2 of translation from " However " down to"indignation or exa-speration" and then to " recklessly ". j Now justjudge of the effectproduced on the minds of Marathi readers by thissentence. We wantSwarajya and if we don't get it some people will beso horribly annoyedthat they will embark on the commission of horribledeeds. " Thehorrible deeds ' ' referred to is the incident ofMuzafferpur where a boythrew a bomb and killed two innocent ladies. We aretold Swarajya mustbe given and if we don't get it some turn-headed menwill becomeviolent. ( Reads: from middle of page 3 " somepeople think " down to' ' accomplished " . ) What is the spoke that isgoing to be put into thewheel of the car of the administration ? The bomb orwhat else is it ?Then againf Reads from middle of the page 4 from "But while certainefforts " down to " are seditious". J I am bound topoint out on page 5some sentiments that appear to be perfectly properon the same day.If you wish to knov/ what the intention of theaccused was and what hewas writing you have to turn to Exhibit " D " whichare editorial notesor " Stray Thoughts of the Editor " in the paperpublished on the 12th

File1-Tilak TrialMay. Take the first Stray Thought, look at thelatter part of it. ( Readsfrom " Some people" down to "Bengal") "Murders areuseful sometimesin order to direct the attention of the authoritiesto grievances," Here wehave the murder of two ladies and we are told thatit is useful in directingthe attention of Government to the grievances of theBengalis. Take^ thesecond Stray Thought (Reads: — " It is only " downto " nationalassassination". ) The suggestion here is that therulers wish in theirminds to wipe out some people or institutions. Thisis capable of explana-tion, I dare say such an explanation has been madeand it is for you tosay whether it is adequate.

Then we come to the consideration of the secondarticle dated 9thJune 1908. It is very difficult to comment on thisarticle. It has beenread to you. I would rather leave you to judge foryourselves what theeffect of that article is. What is the article ?What does itcontemplate ? What does it preach under the headingof" These Remedies are not lasting"? He saysrepressive measuresare not effective and goes on discussing the bomb.He makes com-parisons between the various people who use bombsand in doing

File1-Tilak Trial

12 THE JUGDE'S summing UP.

SO says. (Reads: — " The authorities have spread"down to " thepolicy of repression'' .) Do you talk of patriotismin the case of bombs-bombs that effect murders ? You are judges ofwhether such a discussiondoes or does not tend to bring the Government asestablished by Law inIndia into hatred and contempt. Take the top of thesecond page.(Reads:- " The most mighty Czar '' down to "as amatter of course".)Bow down to the bomb ! Then there is a simile of theparrot with its wingplucked and its leg broken. I suppose it is intendedfor the IndianNation. Then there is the comparison between thesway of the MogalEmperor Aurunzebe with the sway of the EnglishNation and then you havesome sentences which may or may not effect yourminds with regard tothe subject matter of these three charges, f Reads:— " The residence ofthe English" down to "aftar making a seperatedivision". J You have thena whole page which I have no doubt you have read andwhich it is un-necessary to discuss with you. In the similies youhave the effects of thebombs explained is various ways. Its usefulness fReads;- "The bombhas more the form" down to "it is a charm, anamulet".) Thoseof youwhocan read Marathi will be able to read the original

File1-Tilak Trialarticles. The accusedhas read the article to you and given anexplanation, of hismeaning. (reads:" The bomb has more the form ofknowledge it is a kind of witchcraft, it is a charm,an amulet. "J Ihave had portions of the original article writtenout for me in readablecaligraphy and the words are.

( Hi Ek Jadu ahe )( Ha Ek Mantra Todga ahe )

When an accused person is charged with attempting toexcite feelingsagainst the Government and other articles are put infor the purpose ofshowing intention and the individual is desirous ofrefuting this conten-tion then articles which tend to confirm thesubject-matter of the chargemay be considered as there may be other things whichthrow light on thequestion whether they are calculatd to raisefeelings of disaffection.For instance in Exhibit G page 2 you will find(Reads "The Bengaliscontinually agitated " down to " nationalregeneration. " ) It is aperfectly proper sentence, you cannot find faultwith it. But look whatfollows. ( Reads: — down to " honour of their women." ) He says thatwhen the Bengalis were resorting to perfectly properand legitimatemeans for their national regeneration Governmentbecome irretated bythis patriotism of the Bengalis and letting loose

File1-Tilak Trialsome Musalman bud-mashes caused damage to their property and thehonour of their women.Is it fair ? Is it or is it not a charge against theGovernment of inciting Ma-

THE judge's summing UP. 13

homedans for the most improper purposes to attackthe Bengalis loot theirproperty and violate their women ? It is for you tosay. Would anybodyafter reading that have any respect for Governmentor would theirfeelings be those of hatred and contempt anddisloyalty ? As Ihave said before these articles have been before youa longtime and it would take me a great deal of time todiscuss theeffect of all those articles. I repeat again judgeof these articles for3^ourselves do not allow what I have said toinfluence you beyond drawingyour attention to the articles. If anything that Ihave said commendsitself to you, accept it, if not reject it withouthesitation. There isone other small subject to be discussed and that isthe Post Card ( Ex.K. j you are the best judge of what effect to giveto it. To my mind it is nota piece of evidence which ought to affect yourminds. It contains the namesof two books on explosives. The production ofcatalogues to show that the

File1-Tilak Trialbooks were mentioned in those catalogues is ofcourse of no importance. Theaccused has given his explanation that it was hisintention to study the bookswith a view to criticising the Explosives Act. Thatmay be true. We did notknow whether these books are books which deal themanufacture of explosiv-es. Because I should have thought that if they referto the manufacture ofexplosives the Card might have some meaning. Now itis not a piece ofevidence which onghto weigh in your minds againstthe accused. The ac-cused discussed bombs and may have been anxious todiscuss the explosivesAct in some form or another. Well Gentlemen, I amafraid I have detainedyou longer than I intended. The case is one which asI have stated itwill be entirely for you to decide. The accused hasapplied to you or tosome of you to differ, at least one or two, and hesays it would be a greatconsolation if you differ, I do not konw what hemeans or what hisobject is in asking you to differ. I shall ask youto make every effort ifnecessary to be unanimous. If yoa think that theaccused i?. not guiltyby all means without fear or favour acquit him- Ifyou think he is guiltyyou must find him guilty. But if any of you,gentlemen, feel you cannotconscientiously agree with the others you areentitled to differ.

If after giving the fullest consideration to what

File1-Tilak Trialaccused has statedafter giving your sympathatic consideration toeverything accused has urgedin his defence, you feel you have reasonable doubtsof the guilt of theaccused by all means say so. On the other hand ifyou find that he hastransgressed the law and that his writing amounts toan attempt to bringthe Government into contempt and hatred it will beyour duty t^return a verdict accordingly, I do not Jthink I canusefully say anythingmore.


I ask you again to judge of the accused by what isbefore you. Onwhat you have heard in this room and what you haveread of his writings.Put out of your minds everything you may have heardbefore you becamemembers of this jury and all that you have heard andread outside since.Apply your minds entirely to the articles before youand tell me, gentlemen,what is your verdict upon the charges. There arethree charges ouyare at liberty to acquit or convict on all three oracquit or convict onany two of the charges. There are two charges underSection 124 A and onecharge under Section 153 A. Consider each chargeseperately and returna verdict on each one of the charges separately and

File1-Tilak TrialI shall ask you to returna verdict that is unanimous, if posssible. I shallhave to administer thtlaw in accordance with your verdict. The case is avery important one tothe accused. The charges are very serious. If youfeel that he is guiltyyou must say so. But if you have any doubt give himthe benefit if thereis any reasonable and substantial doubt in yourminds.

The Jury retired at 8-3 P. M.The Jury returned at 9-20 P.M.

VERDICT AND SENTENCE. 15

Verdict and Sentence.

The Jury returned at 9-20 P. M.

Clerk of the Crown : Gentlemen, are you unanimous ?

Foreman of the Jury : No !

Clerk of the Crown : I do not want 3-ou to tell methe Verdict, simplygive me the number you are divided by.

Foreman f 7 to 2.

Clerk of the Crown: On all the charges?

Foreman : Yes . on all the charges .

File1-Tilak Trial

Clerk of the Crown : On the first charge underSection 124A of sedi-tion with respect to the article of 12th May 1908,what is the verdict ofthe majority?

Foreman: Guilty.

Clerk of the Crown : 7 to 2 ?

Foreman: Yes.

Clerk of the Crown: On the second charge underSection 124 A of sedi-tion in respect of the article of 9th June 1908,what is your verdict?

Foreman: Guilty!

Clerk of the Crown: 7to2.?

Foreman: yes.

Clerk of the Crown: On the third charge underSection 153A of rais-ing ill-feeUng amongst classes in respect to thearticle of 9th June 1908what is your verdict?

Foreman : Guilty !

Clerk of the Crown: 7 to 2 ?

Foreman: Yes.

His Lordship: Mr. Foreman, is there any chance ofyour being una-

File1-Tilak Trialnimous ?

Foreman: I am sorry to say my Lord, that I am afraidthere is none.

His Lordship : No chance of becoming unanimous ?

Foreman : No chance .

His Lordship: Under Section 305 of the CriminalProcedure Code if theJury is divided by more than 6 to 3 the Judge isbound to state whether heagrees with the majority or not and the law laysdown that if the Judge agreeswith them he shall give judgment in accordance withthe verdict and I haveno option but to pass sentence.

16 VERDICT AND SENTENCE.

Advocate General : There is another charge I wish toprefer beforeyour Lordship passes jndgmento

Accused : I ajiply for certain points of law to bereserved under Sec-tion 434 Criminal Procedure Code.

His Lordship : What are the points ?

Accused: I will read them.

(Reads the following application for law points tobe reserved) .

File1-Tilak Trial

FOINTS ivliich Defence jn'Of/s may he reserved andreferred to Full Bench under Sec. 434 of theCriminalFrocedure Code.

1 . Whether the whole trial is not vitiated owing tothree offences-two of them under Section 124 A and the third underSection 153 A forming-subjects of two distinct commitments ha\dng beentried together in opposi-tion to defence objections and whereby accused hasbeen prejudiced.

2. Whether Exhibit D could be made the • subject,simultaneously oftwo charges one under Section 124 A and the otherunder Section 153 Awithout in either case specifying the portionscoming thereunder.

3. Whether having regard to Sec. 222 Criminal Pro.Code the chargeswere legally defective in as much as none of themgave the accused notice ofthe particular objectionable portions, and if sowhethel the whole trial is notvitiated thereby.

4. Whether the charge under Sec. 153 A is notlegally deficient in notindicating the classes between whom the accused isalleged to have promo-ted or attempted to promote feelings of hatred &c,and if so whether thetrial on that charge is not wholly vitiated thereby.

File1-Tilak Trial

5. Whether the prosecution for the offences underSec. 124 A or153 A is proved to have been properly initiatedwithout putting in thecomplaints and examining the complainants .

6. Whether the provisions of Sec. 196 CriminalProcedure Code havebeen satisfied in this case and if not whether thetrial is sustainable.

7. Whether Exhibit B. is legally sufficient tosupport the prosecutionunder Sec. 153 A.

8. Whethr Exhibit E-J are admissible and if so forwhat purposes.

9. Whethr the accused in this case loses his rightof reply by the merefiling of the several papers forming Exhibit No . 1Avith which Exhibit A wasrecovered by the Police.

10. Whether Exhibit A is admissible and relevant inthis case.

VERDICT AND SENTENCE. 17

11. Whether the accused is entitled to rely on thepapers accompanying-Ids statement,

12. Whether the accused had not in this case a right

File1-Tilak Trialof reply.

13. Whether charges based on translations that havebeen shown to beimtenable are sufficient in law to sustain a trialthereon.

14. Whether in the face of the objections b}- thedefence challengingthe correctness of the translations of Exhibits C &D it was not illegal to haveadmitted the same without having been proved by theTranslator who trans-lated them and submitting the Translator forcross-examination.

His Lordship: With reference to this applicationevery one of thepoints had arisen and been discussed and there isnot one single point, Iassure the accused, in this application which I havenot most anxiously consi-dered. I would be most anxious, if I had thesmallest doubt in my mind, ifany one of these points were worth discussingorreser\'ing, I should be mostwilling to reser\' e any one of these points forconsideration by the Full Bench .But I have most anxiously considered every argumentand contention of theaccused. Most of these points are covered byauthorities and the otherpoints are so elementary that they hardly admit ofany argument.If I feel there was the least use or that it coulddo the least possible good tothe accused to reserve these points or any one ofthem, I should have been

File1-Tilak Trialmost willing to do so . I do not think that any ofthese points have an}-substance in them and I decline to accede to theapplication.

Advocate General : I propose to put up the accusedon anothercharge of previous conviction. He will have to pleadto the charge,yes or no. And the jur^' will have to decide. If hedenies it we will prove it.

Clerk of the crown : Reads further charge (Reads"Prisoner at thebar ! On the 14th September 1897 you were convictedat the 4thCriminal Sessions of this High Court under section124 A I. P. C, to 18months simple (?) imprisonment.") Do you pleadguitly or claim to be tried?

Accused : I do not know how the question arises.Under Section75 I. P. C. I do not think such a question canarise; besides it is not inthe charge.

His Lordship : I suppose Mr. Advocate General youapply underSection 221 and 310.

Advocate General : Yes, my Lord, under Section 221and 310; andif he denies I wiU prove it under Section 511.

His Lordship : This is not a proceeding under 75 I.P. C. It is aproceeding under the C. P. C. and you have to plead

File1-Tilak Trialto the charge.

Accused : It is not in the charge. It arises out ofSection 75 I. P. C.and is not admissible for enhancement of punishmentfor this class of offences.So how can it be inserted ?

His Lor«lship : This is a charge which, if theverdict of the Jury is pro-perly made against you, you nmst plead to.

18 VERDICT AND SEi;fTENCE.

Accused : It does not become relevant for thepurpose of enhance-ment of punishment.

His lordship : Whatever the reason is you must pleadwhether thecharge is correct or not.

Accused : I take it that Your Lordship thinks ,thatat the presentstage it is rightly put in here ?

His Lordship : Yes, at the present stage it isrightly put in here.Accused : In that case I admit it.

Advocate General : That m.eans he pleads "Guilty" myLord.

His Lordship : Yes, I have taken down "admitsprevious conviction."

File1-Tilak TrialHis Lordship to the accused : Do you wish to say anything more be-fore I pass sentence ?

Accused : — All I wish to say is that in spite ofthe verdict of the JuryI maintain that I am innocnt. There are higherPowers that rule the desti-ny of things and it may be the will of theProvidence that the cause which Irepresent may prosper more by my suffering than bymy remaining free.

--~""*TIis Lordship : — It is my painful duty now topass sentence upon you. Icannot tell you how painful it is to me to see youin this position. You area man of undoubted talents and great power andinfluence. Those talentsand that influence , if used for the good of yourcountry, would have beeninstrumental in bringing about a great deal ofhappiness for those verypeople whose cause you espouse. Ten years ago youwere convictedand the Court dealt most leniently with you then,and the Crown dealtstill more kindly with you. After you had undergoneyour (simple ?) impri-sonment for one year, six months of the sentence wasremitted upon con-ditions which you accepted. The condition which yousigned then wasthis. (Reads from document. — "I hereby accept andagree to the aboveconditions, understanding the meaning to be such actor writing as is con-

File1-Tilak Trial--sidered as an offence. " It seems to me that itmust be a dis-eased mind, a most per\'erted mind that could saythat the articles which youhave written are legitimate weapons in politicalagitations. They areseething with sedition ; they preach violence ; theyspeak of nuirders withapproval and the cowardly and atrocious act ofcommitting murders with bombsnot only seems to meet with your approval but youhail the advent of thebomb in India as if something has to come to Indiafor its good. As Isaid, it can only be a diseased and perverted mindthat can think that bombsare legitimate instruments in political agitations .And it would be a diseasedmind that could ever have thought that the articlesyou wrote were articlesthat could have been legitimately written. Yourhatred of the ruling class hasnot disappeared during these ten years. And thesearticles dehberately anddefiantly written week by week, not, as you say, onthe spur of the momentbut a fortnight after that cruel and cowardlyoutrage had been committedupon two innocent EngHsh women . You wrote aboutbombs as if they werelegitimate instruments in political agitations. Suchjournalism is a curse tothe country. I feel much sorrow in sentencing you. Ihave considered mos

VERDECT AND SENTENCE 19

File1-Tilak Trial

anxiously in the case of a verdict of guilty beingreturned against you whatsentence I should pass upon you. iVnd I decided topass a sentence which Iconsidered will be stigmatised as what is called"misplaced leniency".! do notthink I can pass, consistently with my duty andconsistently with the offenceof which you have been found guilty, a Hghtersentence than I am going togive you. And I think for a man in your position andcircumstancesthat sentence will vindicate the law and meet theends of justice.You are liable to be transported for life under thefirst two charges.I have considered whether to sentence you totransportation orimprisonment. Having regard to your age and othercircumstancesI think it is most desirable in the interest ofpeace and order, and in theinterest of the country which you profess to love,that you should be out of itfor sometime. Under Section 124 A I am entitled topass sentence of trans-portation for life or any shorter period, and I passa sentence of three years'transportation under each of the first two charges,the sentences to runconsecutively. You will thus have six years,transportation. On the thirdcharge which is punishable not by transportation butby fine or imprisonmentI do not think I will add to your troubles anyadditional period of imprison-ment. I therefore fine you Rs. 1000.

File1-Tilak Trial

Advocate General : I now apply for the withdrawal ofthe fourth chargeagainst the accused under Section 333.

His Lordship: I grant such withdrawal. Suchwithdrawal to betantamount to an acquittal. So far as the accused isconcerned this is adischarge .

The Jury on the application of the Foreman wereexempted from servicefor three years.

The Sessions were then adjourned.

Judge's ISTotes in the case.

Monday 13th July 1908.l\a\ Gangadhar Tilak.

The Advocate General with :\Ir. Inverarity and Mr.Binning for theprosecution.

Accused defends himself.

The Advocate General applies for one trial inrespect of three out offour charges. 26 All. 195.

16 Bom. 414.

10 Bom. 254,

File1-Tilak Trial25 Madras P. C,

Sec. 333 Cr. Pr. C.

Accused in person. : —

Sec, 227 applies and not the sections referred to bythe AdvocateGeneral.

P. C. Order that the Accused be tried at one trialon three out of thefour charges on which the Accused is committed.

Note. The Advocate General says he will apply underSec. 333 of theCriminal Procedure Code with reference to the fourthcharge. He says hewill not prosecute the charge under 153 A. inconnection with the articleof 12 May 1908.

I intimate that I will order the discharge to beacquittal.

The Advocate General intimates that he will make theapplication underSec. 333 Criminal Procedure Code, after the presenttrial has ended, so asto avoid any possible question of law as to beingalready acquitted. AHcharges read to the accused.

Accused pleads not guilty to all the charges andsays that the wordsshould be set forth in the charges showing whatportions of the articles arecharged as seditious.

File1-Tilak Trial

Mr. Inverarity says the prosecution charge that thewhole of botharitcles are seditious and applies that the chargesmay be amended byincorporating in them the whole articles.

P. C. Charges ordered to be amended by incorporatingthe articles andthe articles are read as part of the charges ( afterthe first article is readaccused says the other may be taken as read. )

I explain to the accused that the prosecution chargehim with threecharges at this trial; imder 124 A in respect ofarticle of 12 may 1908, andcharges under 124 A and 153 A in respect of thearticle of the 9th of June1908.

judge's notes. 21

Mr. Inverarity for the prosecution opens: —

Reads article 12th INIay 1908 and comments.

2 Campbell 399. 402. 403.With decency and respect & without attributingmotives.

Words to be taken in the sense which they areintended to convey.Bhaskar Vishnu Joshi. S. Xd. by Mr. Binning.

I am first assistant to the Oriental Translator to

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment. I ama Bachelor of Arts. I recognise the signature of Mr.H. O. Quin,Acting Secretary to Government Judicial Department.This Document issigned by him. It is sanction to prosecute withreference to article in theKesari of the 12th May 1908.

Ex. A. Sanction dated 23rd June 1908. Ex. A.

This is another sanction signed by Mr. Quin also. Itis dated 26th June1908. It gives sanction to prosecute in respect ofthe article in the Kesariof the 9th of June 1908.

Ex. B. Sanction dated 26 June 1908. Ex. B.

Both the documents are signed at the foot by Mr. H.G. Gell, theCommissioner of Police.

I produce a copy of the " Kesari " newspaper of the12th of May 1908.at pages 4 and 5 is an article which I translated.This is the High CourtOfficial Translation. In the usual course of mybusiness I received this copyof the 12th of May 1908 of the Kesari in my Office.The article I trans-lated is headed " The Coimtry's Misfortune."

.Ex. C. Article with translation put in Ex. C. (12th May 1908) .

I produce another copy of the Kesari of the 9th ofJune 1908. It came

File1-Tilak Trialto me in the same way in the usual course to myoffice. At page 4 columns.2 to 4 of this issue there is an article headed"These remedies are not last-ing" This is the High Court official translation.

Article with translation put in & marked Ex. D. EX.D.

(9th June 1908) .

In Ex. C the Kesari of the 12th of May 1908 there isan article at page'5 column 3. It comes under the "Editor's StrayThoughts" Notes 3 &4These are translations of these notes.

Mr . Binning tenders .

Accused objects.

Accused cites Mayne p. 522.

P. C. Admitted.

JSTotes in Kesari of the 12th May 1908 EX. E. EX. E.

^2 judge's notes.

I produce an issue of the Kesari of the 19th of May.At page 4 columns4 & 5 and col., 1 of page 5, I find an articleheaded "A Double Hint."This issue came to me in the same way as the others.This is the official

File1-Tilak Trialtranslation.

Article with translations put in & marked EX. F EX.F

(19th May 1908.)

I produce the issue of the Kesari of the 26th May1908. At page 4Colunms 3, 4 & 5 there is a Marathi leader headed "The Real Meaning ofthe Bomb." This issue came in the same way as theothers. This isthe translation.

Article with translations put in & marked Ex. G EX.G.^

( 26th May 1908)After lunch.

I produce a copy of the issue of the Kesari of the2nd of June 1908 on. page 4 columns 3, 4, 5 there is a leader entitled"Secret of the Bomb"This paper came to me in the usual course of mybusiness.

Ex. H. Article with translation put in & marked Ex..H. (2nd Jime 1908) .

In Ex. D, (Kesari 9 June 1908) at page 5 columns 2 &3 there arestray thoughts of the editor. Note No. 11 beginswith " English Rule isopenly an aUen rule " this is the translation ofthat note.

File1-Tilak TrialEx. I. Note 11 with translation put in and markedEx, I.

Xd by the Accused —

The translations produced are High Courttranslations. I can vouchfor the -accuracy. I have compared all except Ex, G.I have before thistranslated all of them. In minor matters they differwith my translations;where they differ in most cases the High Courttranslations should be pre-ferred. I have not got my translations here. Theofficial translation ofEx. C. is 2nd July 1908. I don't remember when Itranslated this. I pro-duce the translation in the Magistrate's Court. Itmust have been preparedbefore the 25 of Jime 1908. This is my translation.This is the originalarticle, îiî means white or fair. White is morecomprehensive than Goraîi'wl, European and white will convc}- samemeaning, I translated îRl asEuropean with a marginal note saying it literallymeant white.

In my official capacity I am a regular reader ofMarathi papers. Manynew words have to be coined in Marathi in expressingmodern current poli-tical ideas and writers occasionally insert theEnglish word after the Marathiword to clear up his meaning. "Bureaucracy" is in inE^nghsh in Ex, C.It stands for official class. Not white officialclass. î'=(lii^ means official

File1-Tilak Trialclass. ^^j:i<\ aHîi<\ ^î will do to express"Ruling Classes." û'? ^^'<(ihiii nkwill also mean the same thing. " la\i " " 'i'A'^Zy "^^JsUl and ^[^'A. i'wcll nî willmean the same thing. " Ruling Class " " WhiteOfficial Class " " EngHshOfficial Class " "Official Class in power."Bureaucracy has been translated

Judge's notes. 23

by me as anHljsUl Hî means a " class of oflScials." Bureancracy does notmean the Ruling OflQcial Class. The word does notconvey the idea ofRule. Aristocracy does not convey the idea ofRuling. I cannot give youthe exact meaning of Plutocracy. ¦Î'-^lii^ isofficial, and the HH means class.The expression ^H'^dil^ '-lî would include bothEuropeans and Natives. If youhave to confine it to one of the two classes thesewords must be qualified byan adjective.

I translate Despotism as sji^-i^ ^l«H Tyrannical iswj-a^ Oppressive is !7jiC-iMlI would translate coercive as «tj^^ also. RepressiveîHîiysii it is so usedby you. It is a coined word. Cleaning must beaccording to context.Despotic Rule is the Rule of a Despot or Despoticofficials. I don't knowthe difference between despotic and tyrannical.Despotic Rule is the sameas tyrannical Rule. I have not come across the

File1-Tilak Trialexpression that a despoticRule need not necessarily be a tyrannical Rule. Idon't remember ^âHl'.i«^Hv;^dl <^.Rule is ^l<^Sway is=^">l<^=lili^^l^«ii •>iiil>ll3l

I translate î^cflî^î ^lol ojct ai^l^ îci.

as a Fiend pursued Socrates. It may be translated asEvil geniushaunted Socrates.

The second sentence can be translated as the ^" Evilgenius of repres-sion seizes the Government of India every five orten years. " Seizes isa free translation of wliat expression is used inMarathi.

Hi(^h in Ex. D is not meant in its literary- sense.

"HX^h is a man who recites charms or is well versedin incantations.

judge's notes. 25

:'¦ 5iian,

Ex. D. Page 2 . 7 lines from bottom. This passagedoes notrefer to Decentralization of Power. Such atranslation does not fit thecontext, eil^^fl is not a word that could be used inconnection with the ideaof Decentralization. =<\\r\r^ are used as meaning-

File1-Tilak Trialapportionment of power, tVd not Decentralisation ofPower. In the.sentence you put to me the meaning would still beapportionment ofpower between the Provincial Government and theGovernment of India,

In C alîUl is the word for "hatred" t^^. is "hatredor enmity." I amnot aware of any difference in the meaning. Thefirst is Marathi the secondis Sanskrit. If cildii^l means disgust or not Icannot say without lookingin the dictionary. I do not remember to havereferred to the dictiouar}-.Referring to Moleswortli I find the meaning is givenas "feeUngs of disdainor disgust." It is not translated as "hatred."

In Ex. C the word for "perversity" is ^\H\ and for"obstinacy" is (âThe two words are not synonymous and used to makethe idea stronger.

2G jtdge's notes.

There is the conjuuction "and" between the twowords. ^'ÎH^ niav t>etranslated as "stnbborness" but that word woiild notsuit the context. I can'tsay what would be necessary' to make the word^Î'^^stubboniess. â CiHi3,^1^^ would mean "obstinacy or perversity," but itwould not meanstubborness in my opinion. Shown Ex. F. (19th May1908) , at page 3

File1-Tilak Trialthe original words for obstinacy or stubborness are(4ciw Ci'ni |^m^lH. Thewords are used for Rulers.

In Ex. C these are the words "But the dispensationsof God are extra-ordinary^. " The word used is ^>il^H fordispensation. The dictionary mean-ing is apportionment or dispensation. hhi{ and knis derived from 'fl^iH meaning rule or regulation.It may be rendered" the ways of God are strange " §^Hcl means"overbearing or violent." Itmay mean "rude."

Insolently may or may not be translated asimpertinently or rudely . 1can't say off hand. Patience of humanity can equallybe rendered as humanpatience, but it w'ould not be a literaltranslation. The meaning of ^^His " excited. " The translation in Ex. C isexasperated. In Ex. C page2 the original word for insolence is Hi and the wordfor inebriated is ^'^ . Tcan't say whether ^*g means blinded. The dictionarymeaning is "of dulledvision through sickness." The meaning of "Hi in thedictionary is arrogance"haughtiness" also "intoxication. " " Blinded by theintoxication ofpower" may be a right rendering of that sentence.

The words for "monopoly" would be Hbai ^cl5ic-li,^^t*^ 'Hirii would be a freeTendering of the word monopoly. Monopoly would notbe a correctsubstitute for the words "whole contract" in Ex. C.

File1-Tilak Trial

an^l <[\\

In ÎH ÎH ^ti«i wiit^ the meaning of Ht^n is"saving" not "mistaking"clîlX &percnt;ii^ ^^'l Mli MU^ would be "he atesalt thinking it to be sugar."

^« ^^n ÎCHI >il? 'lî is "don't beat me thinking Iam a thief." InEx. C page 3, 8th line from the bottom the word&percnt;i^=M^^f4l is omitted.It means one who has thousand rays. It seemsintensity of heat.

At page 4 Ex. C the word King begins with a CapitalK. It may be aprinter's Devil. The original words mean Ruler &Ruled.

At the bottom there is another captil K. That alsois the printer's Devil.The word î«i in the original is used as a commonnoim.

^M & il«l would be king and subjects. Ruler & Ruled.î«l does not mea^many rulers.

At page 4 at the bottom the original for "means ofprotection" cannotbe correctly translated as "means of escape orresource".

"Political science" in Marathi is ^lff/«ilcflSi û^.It may be îwH^Hl^ Ul^

At page 5 in Ex. C the words " the scriptiire laying

File1-Tilak Trialdown the dutiesof kings in original are the ÎwÛ^h i=il You maysubstitute Harsh for savage.

For manhood the original word is Wi^ manliness maybe used formanhood. Apte's Dictionary gives "Manliness" as oneof the meanings ofî^^. Molesworth gives the correct meaning asmanhood. In the sentence^ven to me I have translated manliness for "Mi^^ inthe sentence.

*>8 judge's notes,

I have translated the word emasculation as>H^-fli'MiT In the original articleEx. D the marathi words used are "^n^-fl i^nl andî^^. They are correctlytranslated in the official translation as castrationand manhood^

At page 2 of Ex. D the word wobbbling cannot besubstituted by theword Hnêring.

At page 2 in the last line the word "heedlessly" istranslation of ^J^î'HK-\<{< in ]\Iarathi. The expression cannot betranslated as " irresponsible ^\For 9i>iK other Marathi words are Mia^ or "H^cil. Itmay mean heed or regard.'

In 5i oj^HK I can't say whose ^HK is referred to,'

"Migratory bureaucracy" I would translate as (slM^

File1-Tilak Trial^H^rQil^ ciôi^ Thephrase occurs in Ex. D. Migrator}- is not theliteral meaning of SiM^T Theword migratory may do for the expression "officershaving tcmpo7-ary interestn the countr}-". The original word for nose-string\^ h^*!. The corres-i ponding EngHsh idea is "bridle." I would translate'll^& as gratuitous;It may mean "unnecessary."

The literal meaning is r^/z^^-Z^^.^/y. "î^'i =îti<M^sii is devoutly or openly.'It also means "goes without saying."

Ex. G.

i|li=Hl=i^ <:-[l ^5H I would .'translate this as "Heis lookingat me with an e\dl glance," meaning I have incurredhis displeasure. (See».Ex. G page 2 line 3.) Disfavour is a remote meaningfor the word.

^lc-iiJESDAY 15th JULY 1908.Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

Continued from yesterday.

Peter Sullivan further cross-examined by theAccused. All the papersseized in the search are now here. (Accused allowedto examine all thepapers received from the Chief PresidencyMagistrate.)

I had been to Singhgad to search your house underthe Chief Presi-

File1-Tilak Trialdency Magistrate's warrant endorsed by the DistrictMagistrate of Poenasearched the residence at Singhgad. The Poena andSinghgad houseswere searched under the same warrant. Singhgad wasspecifically menti-oned by the District Magistrate. I only assisted inthe execution of thewarrant. 1 have seen the wariant. I believe thev/arrant was endorsedby the District Magistrate of Poona authorisingsearch at Singhgad,The warrant is returned to the Chief PresidencyMagistrate Bombay.We did not take any of your men to Singhgad. Therewas your watchmanthere. The watchman opened the house at Singhgad.The men had no keysand we broke the cupboards open. There were twocupboards in the hall.I did not inform your men at Poona that we weregoing to Singhgad.'We got nothing at Singhgad. We left the locks asthey were. The lockswere not broken. We removed the hinges. We did notput thino-s inproper order again.

fNote 1 . Witness to be recalled after some of thepapers which arenot here are received from the Magistrate's court).

-52 judge's notes.

No re-examination.

File1-Tilak TrialThe Advocate-General closes the case for theProsecution.

Accused's statement before the Magistrate in bothcases read to the Jury,

I ask the Accused if he wishes to make any statementto explain theevidence given in the case,

( Ss. 289 & 342 ) Cr. Pr. Code:

Accused says he will make a statement after thepapers, that weretaken in the search and which are not here, areproduced.

( Note 2. ) Papers sent by the Chief PresidencyMagistate in confor-mity with the directions given yesterday evening,compared with the listof papers taken possession of by the Police asmentioned in the Panch-]iama. Papers Nos. 19 to 52 except No. 46 are notbefore this Court.

Peter Sullivan recalled, further xd. by the AdvocateGeneral.

I produce the original Panchnama made when thesearch warrantswere executed. There are two search warrants that Itook to Poonafor execution.

Panchnama of 25th June 1908 Ex. L.

Search warrants collectively put in and marked Ex.

File1-Tilak TrialN. ( Accuseddesired their production and on production wereinspected by him. )

Accused says all the papers are now here.Peter Sullivan, Cross-examined by the Accused.

Some of the papers were found on the top of thewriting desk andsome in the drawers. Large manuscripts were on thetop. Smaller papersincluding newspaper cuttings were found in thedrawers. I can't tell asto which paper or as to where it was found. (Searchwarrants shown.) Thesearch warrant for residence was endorsed by theCity Magistrate at first.When I went to Poona, the District Magistrate wasnot at home so I tookthe warrants to the City Magistrate. The CityMagistrate endorsed themon the 24th of June last in the evening. 1 went toyour residence thefollowing morning after daybreak. I did not executethe warrant. Thewarrant for searching residence was returned asexecuted on 25thof June. The Poona residence search was finishedbetween 9 and 10 A. M.We started for Singhgad about 12 noon. Mr. Daviesand Mr. Power wentwith me. I don't know how the endorsement of theDistrict Magistratecame to be made. The warrant was with Mr. Davieswhen we went toSinghgad I saw it with him. What we took at Poonawas in conformitywith what was ordered by the warrant.

File1-Tilak Trial

judge's notes, 33

This bundle of papers was found either on the deskor in the¦drawers.

All the papers in the bundle put in and markedcollectivdy by theAccused Ex: No I.

( Note. The Accused puts in these papers after itwas explained tohim by me both to-day and yesterday that he wouldlose his right ofaddressing the Jury last^.

The Advocate General closes the case for theProsecution.

Statement made by the Accused to the CommittingMagistrate inboth cases read to the Jury again.

Accused is asked if he wishes to make a statement.

He reads a statement in writing.

The Accused says he does not wish to adduce anyevidence.

The Advocate General objects to the list annexed tothe Accused'sstatement, says those documents mentioned areirrelevant.

File1-Tilak TrialAccused before addressing the Jury says he isentitled to address afterthe Advocate General.

Refers to a Calcutta case.

Timol's case.

Cal. W. Notes Aug. 1906.

P. C. I feel bound by the judgment of Batty J. inEmperor vs.Bhaskar.

8 Bom. I^aw- Rpr. 421.

Accused addresses the Jury:- 3. 35.

Attempt 8. B. h. R. p. 438.

Stephen's History of the Criminal Law Vol.11 p. 221.Mayne's Cri-minal Law.

3 B. L. R. Ap. C. p. 55

Lord Cockburn's Law of Sedition,

Law is strict but Juries have stood between thestrictness of the lawand liberty of the press .

Every dictionary contains seditious words thereforethe author of adictionary would have to go to Jail.

It is necessary to direct the Jury to all thesurrounding circumstances

File1-Tilak Trialto inculpate the accused.

Excite, To inflame, call out. To increase or add toexciting feeling.

34 judge's notes.

If twelve of his countrymen thiuk a man has writtensomething thatis blamable then he may be convicted of sedition.

Government is defined in the Indian Penal Code andincludes aPolice Constable.

If a man says the Government should no longer existhe does notnecessarily harbour feelings of enmity against theGovernment.

You are not bound to return a verdict of guilty. Itis open for you tosay that the evidence is insufficient and we cannotmake up our minds.

Sedition does not consist in the mere act ofwriting. It consists ofevil intention-evil mind.

You must consider that malicious intention doesexist before youconvict.

Mere character of writing may be some evidence ofintention but is notsufficient evidence.

File1-Tilak Trial

Inferior ofiScers have taken a sanction to be amandate. Juries havediffered from a Judere.

A man may be an intemperate man. The language usedby me maynot be used by another man. There must be a distinctwicked intention.

THURSDAY 16th JULY 1908.Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

From yesterday.

The accused continues his address.: —

Attempt includes both intention and motive,

Jivan Dass. 39 Panjab Reports Cr. Cases P. 83Attemptingto kill.

RusselPs law of Crimes P. 725.

Motive may be good but the act may be bad. Mancommits theft togive the proceeds in charity.

R. Vs. Lambert 22 State Trials 9/85

** " State Trials 325

After lunch.

If you want to put down the bomb you must also put

File1-Tilak Trialdown thebureaucracy.

Perversity =stubborness .

Oppressive official class=: Despotic bureaucracy.

judge's notes. 35

FRIDAY 17th JUI.Y 1908:Bal Gangddhar Tilak

Resumed from yesterday.'The accused continues his address to the Jury:-

Pioneer 7th May 1908 Cult of the Bomb.Bx. C. alleged mistranslation.Sorrow =Pain,White= English.Hatred= Disgust .

Perversity ^^Stubbornness, haughtiness, obstinacy.Obstinacy= Haughtiness.Extraordinary^ Strange .Madcap= Fanatic .Badmash= Criminal .Identical =Those very.

«^€iMl=Oppressive official class= Arbitrary ordespotic bureaucracy.Oppressive official class=«ic-iHl ^JifeUjii^l^af .

2 : 30 P. M.Both sides not objecting adjourned to Monday toenable the Jury toattend to their Mail work.

File1-Tilak Trial

MONDAY 20th JULY 1908.Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

From Friday 17th instant.Accused continues to address the Jury.

add add

C Treachery ) ( Intention )

Assassination= Killing or murder.

Mutiny — Revolt — Disturbances .

Exasperated =Excited .

Inebriated =:Blinded.

Insolence of authority=Intoxicatiou of authority.'

Uncomplainingly^ Ungrrudgingly .

Oppressive enactments= Repressive enactments.

3G judge's notes.

Reckless ^Domineering.Movement^ Agitation,Improper^: Imprudent.Vehemence= Keenness.

Who are adverse to Government =Who are false friendsof Gov-

File1-Tilak Trialernment.

5-50 P. M,

TUESDAY 21ST JULY 1908.Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

From yesterday.Accused continues to address : —

Ex. D. Fiend of repression^ Evil genius ofrepression.False report =False cry.Madcap patriot^ Fanatic patriot.Needlessly =Irresponsibly .

After lunch.Punjab weekly Reporter 14. 1897.

Jejhwantrai & Athavale.

Punjab Records.Accused commeuced ad- Vol 42 No 9 r. 2^

-rlesaing on Wednesday at ^°' ^ P* '^^'

3:35 Sep. 1907.

^, , ^^'^S' Fiend=: Demon.

Thursday 5 hrs.

Friday 3 hrs.

Monday 5 hrs.

File1-Tilak TrialTuesday 5 hrs,

Wednesday 1 hr.

21 hours.

WEDNESDAY 22nd JUI^Y 1906.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

From yesterday.Accused continues to address the Jury : —

Section 294, 663,- 708 Mayne's Criminal Law-The Advocate General sums up for the Prosecution.

12 noon.(1) Printing, Publication and Responsibility.{2) What is the meaning of those articles.(3) What was the writer's intention.

Resumed at 3 P. M.

JUDGE S KOTES. 37

Section 105 Evidence Act.

Advocate General concludes his address:

I sum up.

Verdict 7 to 2 on all the charges.'

Majority for guilty, on all the charges.

File1-Tilak Trial

No chance of being unanimous. I agree with theverdict of the niajority. ist Charge 124A Article 12th May 19o8.

2nd Charge 124 A Article 9 June 1908.

3rd Charge 153A Article 9 June 1908.

The Accused asks that certain points may be reservedfor the consi-deration of the Full Bench.

Hands in a written paper stating the points hewishes to have reserved.

Application refused. Points covered by authority &too elementary toneed further discussion. Most of the points wereconsidered and discussed,as the case progressed. .

Accused charged with a previous conviction.

He admits the charge of previous conviction.

Sentence on the first charge Transportation for 3years.

Sentence on the second charge Transportation for 3years.

Sentences to run consecutively.

Sentence on the third charge 1000 Rs. Fine.

Charge under Section 153A Article 12 May 1908.

File1-Tilak TrialFurther charge withdrawn under Section 2)2i2> Cr.Pr. Code by theAdvocate General.

I discharge the Accused and direct that thisdischarge be tantamountto an acquittal on this charge.

Sessions dissolved.

Petition to the Full Bench.

In tlie Higli Court of Judicature at Bombay.Ceown Side.

In the matter of criminal caseEmperor.

Vis.


To,

The Honourable the Chief Justice and the Judges oftheHigh Court of Judicature, Bombay.

The Petition of the above named

Bal Gangadhar Tilak

sentenced to transporation but now incarcerated

in the Sabarmati Central Jail at Ahmedabad.Showeth : —

File1-Tilak Trial

1. {a). That on the 24th day of June 1908, yourpetitionerwas arrested in Bombay in pursuance of a Warrantissued \)j theChief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay and committedto prison.

{h). That on the 25th day of June 1908 yourpetitionerwas placed before the said Magistrate upon acomplaint of havingcommitted offences punishable under Sections 124 Aand 153 A, ofthe Indian Penal Code, in respect of an articleentitled, " The Coun-try's Misforune " printed in the issue of a weeklyMarathi Journalstyled the " Kesari " for the 12th day of May, 1908.

{c). That on the said 25th day of June 1908 thelearnedMagistrate recorded some evidence against yourpetitioner andremanded him to prison, bail being objected to bythe Prosecutionand refused l*y the Magistrate.

{d). That on the 29th day of June 1908 certainfurther evi-dence was recorded by the Magistrate against yourpetitioner andhe was thereafter charged by the Magistrate withoffences underSections 12 i A and 153 A of the Indian Penal Codeand committedto the Criminal Sessions of this Honourable Court to

File1-Tilak Trialbe tried on th?said charges. A copy of the said charges is heretoannexed andmarked A.

PETITION TO THE FULL BENCH. 89

(2> Calcutta 68 and 1256;1 C. ly. J. 475, 5 C. L. J. 231, 6 C. L. J. 320:and757; 8 C. W. N. 344,9 C. W. N. 9o9, 11 C. W. N. 789; 24 Allahabad 254,26 Allahabad 195;(1904; W. N. 165 and 223.

Nota Bene.

The law is therefore thoroughly settled. Accordingto 6 Bombay L. R.725, a joinder of two offences not of the same kindwould vitiate the trial.Therefore the joinder of 124 A with 153 A vitiatesthe whole trial. Mr.Justice Chandavarkar held in the Hind Swara/ case'that the offenceunder Seclion 124A of the Penal Code is not anoffence of the same kind

FINAL HEARING OF THE RULE NISI 83

as an offence under Section 153A of the Code. Andthe Criminal Pro-cedure Code no doubt to provide that these offencescannot be tried to-gether .' Furthermore if the attempt be a distinct

File1-Tilak Trialoffence then there are 4offences under 124 A alone charged and two under153A. This wouldmake the trial all the worse.

I shall however, proceed to consider whether theexceptions sanctionsuch a trial.

EXCEPTIONS.Section 234\ — The first exception to Section 2?iZis Section 234.

Section 234 says — " When a person is accused ofmore offences thanone of the same kind, committed within the space of12 months, from thefirst to the last of such offences he may be chargedwith and tried at onetrial^ for any number of them not exceeding three "

" Offences are of the same kind when they arepunishable with thesame amount of punishment under the same scdtiov ofthe Indian PenalCode or any special or local law."

Comment: — (ij The first requisite of joinder in 234is that they mustbe offences of the same kind. But here they are notof the same kind asalready explained, vie., 124A and 153A. They do notfall within the samesection. Moreover, Section 124 A is punishable withtransportation forlife or 3 years rigorous imprisonment, whereas 153 Ais not punishablewith transportation at all but with only 2 years

File1-Tilak Trialrigorous imprisonment.The amount is not the same.

(ii j The second requisite is that the number shallnot exceed three.But here there are 16 offences exclusive of thefourth charge on 153 A, andthe fifth charge about previous conviction. But evenif the three sets offeeling do not consitute three distinct offences, atleast the attempt isdistinct from the substantive offence. If so therewould be at least sixoffences, viz., 4 under 124 A and 2 under 153 A.This too would contraveneSection 234. It is only when the attempt and thesubstantive offence is regar-ded as one and the same offence and not distinctoffences, that the offences-are reduced to three. But the reduction can only beachieved by ignoringand obliterating the essential distinction between;the substantive offenceand the attempt. In mathematical language attemptpins success con-stitutes the principal or substantive offence. Thewant of success reduce?the substantive offence into an attempt. The factsrequired to establisheither are obviously not co-extensive. Under thecircumstances it isimpossible to regard the two as one offence only.Therefoir Section 234does not Sanction tJie joinder and trial thereonc'/six offences, much lessof six offences not of the same kind. But even theminimum 3, not ofthe same kind, vitiates the trial ; and Section 234

File1-Tilak Trialalone does not help.

Section 2351

This Section 235 does not apply because there aretwo transactionshere, viz^ the publication of the article of 12thMay 1908 entitled ['^ The

S4i FIKAL HEARING OF THE RULE NISI.

coi/u/rv^s misfortune " and the publication of thearticle of 9th June 1908entitled " The remedies are not lasting,'''*

It is submitted that this Section 235 applies onlyto the offence com-mitted in the same translation. This is clearly so,so far as Section 235Clause 1 is concerned, The very terms say so.

Sub-section 2 is equally confined to the sametransaction. The words" the acts alleged " in Sub-section 2, refermanifestly to the " series ofacts " in sub-section 1.

The illustrations to clause (2) indicate that thetransaction is thesame. Moreover, it has been so held in Gopol aniNarasaya^ Weir 892.

Weir 892 says : — " Section 235 seems to apply to acase in which thedifferent offences are parts of one transaction andnot a series of similar

File1-Tilak Trialoffences committed on different dates."

Again in Empress vs. Bogi Ram: — (1897) 22 PunjabRecorder, No.45 p. 105 it was held that " Neither Section 235 norSection 236 relatesto tzvo acts which form tzco distinct transactions.Section 22>6 relates notto distinct acts but to a single act or series ofacts ^ "where the facts beinga ¦: certain ed\\. is donbtful which of severalSections is applicable."

Rednctio ad absiirdnm.

Section 235 must be wholly confined to acts in thesame transactions.If not, it would suffice to allege A stole a watchfrom B, robbed C thenext day, burnt D's house the third, committeddacoity on the fourth,forged E's signature on the fifth, murdered F on thesixth, and so on tobrino- the offences under Section 235 Clause 2.These could never be triedtogether. If they could, it would render thatprotection designed by Section233 Criminal Procedure Code entirely nugatory.Practically it wouldrepeal Section 233, even 234 and 235 Clause 1.Section 235 must there-fore be confined to the same transaction. If not,there can never be anymisjoinder of offences. The ruling in 25 Madree 61must be cast intooblivion. So must the numerous cases on themisjoinder of offences. Thisis impossible.

File1-Tilak Trial

ISota Be?ic.

It follows then that Section 235 cannot applybecause, here, thereare tzco transactions. The offence under Section 124A was committedon the 12th of May in an act which cannot be said toform part of thesame transaction in which the offence of 153 A wascommitted on the 9thof June 1908.

Section 236.

This section must likewise be confined to the sametransaction. Theremarks made and cases quoted on the question ofsection 235 apply withequal force to Section 236.

Section 236 can have no application for two reasons,viz. (i) . Thetransactions are not the same and (ii j there is nocase of dovbt as con-

FINAL HEARING OF THE RULE NISI 85

templated in Section 236. Here the offences are sodistinctly plain uponthe acts alleged that there are separate convictionson 153 A and 124 Aand separate punishments as well. There has evenbeen an acquittrJ. onthe fourth charge on 153 A.

File1-Tilak TrialConclusion.

Coiiclnsion : — It is therefore quite clear that theexceptions in Sections234, 235 and 236 taken individually anddisjunctively do not sanction theadopted mode of trial or in the language of theJudgment of the PrivyCouncil in 25 ^ladras 61 "these trials areprohibited in the mode theywere conducted. " The trials were conducted jointlyin spite of the objec-tion of the accused whereas they ought to have beenconducted separately.

Prejudice.

The question ot prejudice has nothing to do with atrial illegally con-ducted. That cannot convert an illegal ,Juto a legaltrial. If prejudice isrequired, it must be presumed from the very mode oftrial. But therewas great prejudice in admitting to Exhibits D, E,F, G, H and I. Thesecould not possibly be given in evidence against thefirst article of the12th of May as they are all of a latter date. Butthey were given andwere actually utilised to establish criminal intentfor both articles. Exhi-bit D is moreover the subject of a second charge on124 A. The trial onthat would be pending but for the joinder. While itwas pending itcould not be given in evidence against the accusedto the first trial.Its admission must thefore have intensified the

File1-Tilak Trialprejudice. Had thesetrials been separated there can be but little doubtthat no Jury wouldever convict the accused on the first article. TheCrown must haverealised that, for they hastened with lighteningspeed to institute asecond prosecution on the article of the 9th of June1908. There was noneed for this haste but the sound fear of anacquittal. The second sanc-tion is dated 26th June 1908 i. e. after arrest andinquirv on /'4th June.The first order is dated 3rd June 1908.

This view that no prejudice is required is borne outby the observa-tion in ^^W/// J/^/»/, I. L. R. Calcutta 1256 at1264 :— There isno question of whether the accused have actuallybeen prejudiced bybeing tried together. The question is whether therule that has beenbroken is such, that its breach in other cases islikely to prejudice the ac-cused and to produce evils such as those referred toin the Judgment ofthe Privy Council. " That is the ground on which thedecision is based,and that is the safest principle.

IV-«C0NSTRUCTI0N.

It has been suggested and contended that though thismode of trialis not covered by the excepted case taken singly^ itis so covered if twoexceptions be taken cumulatively. The question then

File1-Tilak Trialarises can theseexceptions be taken cumulatively? This naturallydepends upon theproper construction of Section 233.

86 FINAL HEARING OF THE RULE NISI

Maxzvcir,

Now, my Lord, the policy of Section 233 is plainlydesigned for theprotection of 'the accused for the purpose ofpreventing confusion,embarrassment or prejudice to him by the verymultiplicity of the charges.This is the mischief aimed at. It is denominated a "humane rule "by Lord Blackburn. Therefore that construction wouldbe the true onewhich would ' suppress the mischief and advance theremedy ' in thewords of Lord Coke, There are some pertinentobservations on thispoint in Max-vcll on the Interprdation at SlatuicsChapter X, SectionI— Construction of Penal Laws, page 367. (ThirdEdition by A. B.Kempe. ) I shall quote only two passages.

First — ' The rule which requires that penal andsome other statutesshall be construed siridly was more rigorouslyapplied in former times.But it has lost much of its force and importance inrecenttimes, since it has become more and more generally

File1-Tilak Trialrecognised that the^aramoiiui duly of the Jiidicil Interpreter is toput upon the language ofthe Legislature, honestly and faithfully, its plainand rational meaning andto promote its object. It is founded, however on the/cv/fT^^^v/^.v^ of the lawfor the rig/its of indiz'idnals ... It isunquestionably a reasonable

expectation that, when the former intends anencroachment on

natural liberty or rights ... it will not leave itsintention to begathered by mere doubtful inferences, or convey itin ^ cloudy and darkwords ' only, but will manifest it with reasonableclearness. The rule ofstrict construction does not, indeed, require orsanction that suspiciousf^cratiny of the words, or those hostile conclusionsfrom their ambiguityor from what is left unexpressed, which characterisethe judicial inter-pretation of affidavits in support of ex-part eapplications, or ofconvictions^ where the ambiguity goes to theJurisdiction . . . Thiswould be to defeat, not to promote the object of theLegislature; to mis-read the statute and misunderstand its purpose.("S^?*;? Maxwell pp.367-369.j

Page 385 : — " The rule of strict construction,however, whenever in-voked, comes attended with qualifications, and otherrules no less im-

File1-Tilak Trialportant ; and it is by the light which eachcontributes that the meaningmust be determined. Among them is the rule that,that sense of thewords is to be adopted which best harmonises withthe context and pro-mlStes in the fullest manner the policy and objectof the Legislature. Theparamount object, in construing /tv/c?/ as well asotlier statutes^ is to ascer-tain the legislative intent ; and the rule of strictconstruction is notviolated by permitting the words to have their fullmeaning, or the moreextensive of two meanings, when best effectuatingthe intention. Theyare, indeed, frequently taken in the widest sense,sometimes even in asense more wide than etymologically belongs or ispopularly attached tothem, in order to carry out effectually thelegislative intent, or, to useLord Cok's words, to suppress the mischief andadvance the remedy. ^^( see Maxwell, p. 385. j

Now, my Lords, applying this rule of interpretationa combination ofthe exceptions is impossible. The natural meaning ofthe words in Sec-

TISlAh KEADIXCi OF THE RLLK MSI. 87"

tion 233 appears to be that the general rule shallprevail unless the depar-ture is authorised by any one of the limited

File1-Tilak Trialexceptions taken fii//o-/y andnot cumidativdy. The Courts are not justified inadding to the limitednumber of exceptions to the process of permutationand combination there-by setting at naught the limitation in Section 233and the elaborateprovision intended to cover the whole ground ofexceptions. To soconstrue these Sections would be to hold that theword offences in Section204 means not only the three offences of the samekind mentioned thereinbut also every other offence of any oilier kindwhich is committed in anyact so connected with any one of these threeoffences as to form parts ofthe same transaction. But this clearly cannoi; beintended by ;the legis-lature for in Section 235 it provides for the trialof offences, not of thesame kind. In this connection the addition of Clausef2j in Section222 makes it clear that the offence as used inSection 234 was notintended to include ever}- act so connected withthat offence as to formIjart of the same transaction. ( See 40 P. R. C. R.P. 4 also I. L.R. 25 Madras 61 at p. 73. j

Similarly the elimination of the explanation toSection 453 of the OldCode ( Act X of 1872 ) points to the sameconclusion. Section 453 of theOld Code is now Section 234. The old explanationextended the mean-ing of the expression offences of tlie same kind so

File1-Tilak Trialas to incorporate Section455 of the Old Code which corresponds with Section236 of the New Code.(.SVr /. L. R. 9 Cal J/iOIn the old Code suchseparable offences could bedeemed offences of the same kind within the meaningof the term in Section453 old and 234 new. But the explanation from thenew Code excludesSection 455 old fnow 236) formerly incorporated inold Section 453, now234 by the explanation. There is now no room fordoubt under the newdefinition. Clearly therefore no combinations areintended.

On the other hand, if the legislature hadcontemplated a combinationof exceptions it would have used appropriate wordssanctioning such acombination. Moreover, this limited interpretationwould prevent the lawfrom being circumvented by the addition offictitious charges. For exampleit is admitted that the offence of 124A, on thefirst article couldnot be joined with the offence of 153A (of thesecond article, but if 124Abe added in the second article either under 235 or236 of the criminalprocudure Code then it would be tried. Therefore allthat is necessary is toadd a fictitious charge under Section 124A, althoughthe offence cannot beproved. As a matter of fact in the Hind Swaraj case,I submit with allrespect that Mr. Justice Chandavarkar did make useof a fictitious excuse

File1-Tilak Trialto legalize the trial. He said:— It is admitted byMr. Baptista that the chargelor the offence under Section 124 A of the PenalCode in respect of oneof the two articles in question could be legallyjoined to the charge forthe offence under the same section in respect of theother article. Andin such a case it is equally clear from Sections 236and 237 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure that, if in respect of each ofthe articles the evi-dence recorded substantiated the offence underSection 153 A, insteadof the offence under Section 124 A, the accusedcould be legally convictedof the former offence, even though it did not formthe subject matter of

88 FINAL HEARING OF THE RULE NISI.

the charge. That being the case the addition of theoffence under thatsection in the charage sheet cannot be held to beillegal- "

Now this is bringing Section 153 A within thedoubtful case of lawprovided for by Section 236. But in the Hind Sicarajcase nobody evensuggested a doubt either in the Magistrate's Courtor in the AppellateCourt. There was no doubt in the Magistrate's mindas he charged andconvicted the accused on both the offences, thoughonly one joint punish-

File1-Tilak Trialment was awarded.

He had no recourse to Section Z67 Clause (3)Criminal ProcedureCode or Section 72 of the Penal Code. In other caseson the very samearticle I believe he has inflicted seperatepunishments for 124A and 153A.So that was absolutely no case of doubt, but it wasso treated by Mr.Justice Chandavarkar.

But worse things will happen if once the door forfictitious chargesbe opened. For this reason in Abdul Alajid I. L. R.o3 Calcutta 1256 theCourt firmly refused to listen to the argumentswhich insidiously soughtto introduce a fictitious charge with much moreplausibility.

Mr. Justice Harrington observed as follows:— It hasbeen pressed inargument that because the prisoners might have beenjustly indictedfor dishonestly retaining the whole proceeds, theycannot have been pre-judiced by being jointly tried on separate chargesfor separate offencesand therefore Section 537 applies. As to this thePrivy Council haveheld that Section 537 does not apply in a case wherea man is tried onseveral charges together in breach of Section 22>Z^although such a trialunder the practice obtaining in England of joiningseveral misdemeanoursin one indictment, need not be necessarily unfair to

File1-Tilak Trialthe prisoner- " {^ZCalcutta at 1267—68).

But apart from the danger of fictitious charges theaddition doesnot meet with the approbation of reason. For it isconceded that theoffence under Section 124A of one transaction couldnot be joined with153 A of another. How then can the addition of athird offence, whetherunder 235 or 236 Criminal Procedure Code improvematters. If thejoinder of two offences is embarrassing andprejudicial, surely the inter-polation of a third one must intensify theembarrassment and prejudice.This constitutes the strength of the argumentagainst such joinder andthis exposes the weakness of the case for suchjoinder.

Extension,

But if such joinder be toleretad, it logically leadsto further extension.And such extension is the basis decision of theAppellate Court in the HindSzvaraj case. Mr. Justice Chandavarkar said; — It istrue that, as urged byMr. Baptista, the offence under Section 124 A of thePenal Code and is notan offence of the same kind as an offence underSection 153A of the CodeAnd the Criminal Procedure Code no doubt providesthat these two offencescannot be tried together. But there is nothing inthe Code which directs that

File1-Tilak Trialwhere an accused person is all'eged to have done twoor more acts, each of

EIXAL HEARING OF TilE RULK XISI. 89

which may fall within the definition of an offenceunder one or another ofthe Section of the Penal Code, the section orsections in either case, beingthe same, the joinder of the charges under thesesections is illegal.Substantially the acts amount in such a case, tooffence punishableunder the same section of the Penal Code andtherefore they areoffences of the same kind. " It is difficult tofollow the reasoning in thiscase but this view is supported by Mr. JusticeHeaton. He says:—*' The offences in this case were two in number,namely, the publicationof the 4th April, and the , publication of the 11thApril. These twooffences were, as charged, punishable under the samesections of theIndian Penal Code and were, therefore, it seems tome offences ofthe same kind. If the word "Section" in the secondclasue ofsection 234 be read as incapable of meaning "Sections " that is ifit be read invariably singular, then Mr. Baptista'sargument is good,not otherwise. But I do not think it is theintention of the Code, eitherexpressed or implied, to exclude from the operation

File1-Tilak Trialof section 234 an offe-nce because it is made the subject of more than onecharge. Chargingone act or a series of acts under more than onesection of the Indian penalCode is a proceeding provided for in section 235Clause (5) and in section236 of the Criminal Procedure Code. ' '

Comment.

Mr. Justice Chandavarkar apparently does not invokethe aid ofSection 235 but reads the word " Section " in 234 ascapable of reading" Sections. " So does Mr. Justice Heaton. But thisreading is unwarranted.By this process the number of offences is made toexceed the limit ofthree. The very object of Section 234 is therebyfrustrated. Such a readingmeans this. If in one transaction a man commits theoffences of murder,arson and theft and in the other transaction thesame three offences, and inthe third transaction the same three offences, allof them may be joinedtogether. In principle it makes no difference if tenoffences instead ofof three are committed in each transaction. Thusthirty offences may betried together. Yet it is conceded that no more thanthree offences of thesame kind can be tried together under 234. Forexample in one transa-ction A hurts B and C and in another A hurts D andE. Here in two tran-sactions there are committed four offences of the

File1-Tilak Trialsame kind, z.e^ hurt.These four of the same kind cannot be tried togetheryet an assortmentof. forty offences of different kinds may be if "Section" be read as" Sections " in Section -^34. This is not reason,and Law is the perfe-ction of reason.

If the aid of Section 235 or Section 236 be invokedfor purposes ofcombination then the offeces in each transactionneed not even be of thesame kinds as the offences in the othertransactions, provided only that oneoffence in each transaction is of the same kind, e.g.^ A. commits house-breaking with arson, theft and forgery in onetranstction; he commitshouse-breaking with hurt, and rape in another, andhouse-breaking withmurder and dacoity in a third. The connecting link,the judicial cement,is the single offence of house breaking. All thesecould be tried together.

IK) PINAL UEAllTXG Ol' THE HULK NISI.

The vety statement of such a combftiation rendersthe constructionimpossible. It is certainly unreasonable. It rendersthe protection givenby Section 233 practically nugatory. " It isdifficult to understand how-there could ever be a misjoinder if such a procedurewere authorized"

File1-Tilak Trial(Lord Herschell in (1894; A. C. 494 at 501). Itwould virtually abrogateSection 233. Moreover iX. really means thecombination of sections whichare mutually destructive.

Mutually Destructive.

Section 234. — The basal characteristic in Section234 is the similitudeof the offences. It looks exclusively to inimber^time^ and sameness of theoffences without regard to the number oftransactions, except in so far asthey would be limited by the number of offices ofthe name kind triableunder Section 234.

Section 235. — On the other hand Section 235 is theconverse of Sec-tion 234. In 235 the transaction must be the same,but it is utterly in-different to time and the kind or number ofoffences. The time mayextend over 12 months and the offences may beunlimited in numberand of different kinds. These Sections are thereforepractically antagon-istic and mutually detsructive. How can they becombined ? How can aconstruction charged with such results be the trueconstruction ? Plainlythis does not repress the mischief in view noreffectuate the intention ofthe Legislature. There is therefore no reason toconstrue the singularinto plural or convert the disjunctive intoconjunctive.

File1-Tilak Trial

"The essence of the Code" says the Judgment in I. L.R. 29 Madrazat 560-1 is to be exhaustive on the matters inrespect of which it declaresthe law, and it is not the province of a Judge todisregard or go outside theletter of the enactment according to its trueconstruction. See L. R. '-^9,I. A. 196 as to the Code being exhaustive or not. "

Sections 23^, 235, 236 and 239.

But if Sections 234 and 235 can be taken jointly,why not Sections 234and 239, and, indeed, why not all the Sections 234,235, 236 and 239.The very hypothesis demonstrates such a constructionof the Sections anunreasonable and impossible one. The Legistaturewould have used plai-ner Janguage instead of this circumlocation- Underthese circumstancesI submit the exceptions must be taken singly and notcumulatively. Theview is also borne out by authority.

v.— Gases

1. The first case to which I would ask yourLordship's attention isQueen- Empress vs. Moulna I. L. R. 14 Allahabad 502.In this case thejoinder was disapproved, but it was not condemned asan illegality. Butthis was before the Privy Council decision in 25Madras 61. Before thePrivy Council judgment there was much difference of

File1-Tilak Trialopinion as to whatconstituted a mere irregularity curable by Section537. But my point isthat 14 Allahabad regards it as irregular at least.

2. The next case is Bhngi.^at Dial rs. TheKing-l-:mperDr 40 PanjahRecorder (1905) Cr. Ruling; page \. This casecompletely answers the

PINAL HEARING OF THE RFLE NISI 01

case for combination and also deals with the viewwhich apparently formsthe ratio decidendi in the Hind Siuaraj case.According to this case therecan be no combination of offences even if they fallwithin the same sec-tions, supposing the word Section in 234 can be readas Sections iuthe plural.

This case also adverts to the argument based uponthe addition ofClause 2 to Section 222 of the Criminal ProcedureCode.

3. This very argument based on Section 222 Clause 2was also usedby the Chief Justice in I. L. R. 25 Madras 61 at p.73. It says " Moreoverthe provision of Section 222 Clause (2) shows theintention of the Legisla-ture that no further departure from the law as laiddown in Sections Zoo ,'234 and 235 should be made than was necessary for

File1-Tilak Trialthe purposes of thatparticular enactment. " (See p, 7?>,)

4. The Punjab Case C40 F. R. 4 (1905) ; was followedin Emperor \slKasi Visiuanath I, L. R.30 Madras 328. In this casethere were threedistinct transactions in each of which the sameoffences under Sections409 and 477A of the Penal Code were committed. Thejoinder was heldto be illegal. This case refers to 4 Bombay L. R.433. The Bombay caseinferentially supports the decision in 30 Madrasaccording to the viewtaken by the Madras Court.

5- In an earlier case the Madras High Court heldsuch a combina-tion "irregular," but this also was prior to thePrivy Council decision,f See I. L. R. 12 Madras 21 3), There were twooffences under Sections 372and 373 committed in iivo transactions. It could besanctioned under thesimultaneous operation of Sections 234, 235 and 239.

6. The next case is Isoa Lun Maying vs. King Emperor2, Lo^i'erBurma RuHngs (1903) 10. This was a case decided in1902 in which theChief Court of Lower Burma took the same view. Thiscase is not quotedin the Panjab and Madras Cases but it is a case sowell reasoned outthat it ought to dispel all doubts upon this point.It was a refer-

File1-Tilak Trialence made by the Chief Justice. In the reference hedeals with Section236 which he holds cannot apply except in the caseof doubt. The wordsof the reference are: — 'The question seems to beone of very considerabledifficulty and I think it is desirable to obtain afinal decision on it.'

The full Bench consisted of three Judges. T. White,C.J. Fox andTrevin,J. J. The Chief Justice concurred with theproposed answer whichfully meets the arguments in support of thecontention that Section 234,235 and 236 can operate cumulatively. The Courtholds it can operatesingly only, and not cumulatively.lt refers to thepossible circumvention orthe Law by the addition of fictitious chargesopening the order to the verymischiefs and abuses intended to be suppressed andthe virtual abrogationof Section 2ZZ Cr. P. Code.

The next case is that of Badltai Slicik Vs. Tarapsheik 10C, W. N»32. In this case the: members of an unlawfulassembly lootedcertain persons on the 22nd of February, therebycommitting offe-

02 FINAL HEARING OF THE RULE NISI.

nces under Sections 143 and 379, Indian Pennal Code.The same

File1-Tilak Trialpersons committed the same offence the next day inanother place.The transactions were diffrent. Held the Joinder wasillegal, alth-ough it came within the joint operation of Sections234 and 239. Inthis case the Court consider whether singular couldbe read asplural under the General Clauses Act and whethersuch reading was repug-nant to the context. The last para in the judgmentdeals with the com-bination of Section 239 into Section 234. If thisSection 234 cannot becombined with Section 239 the word 'and' in Section233 has no force ofcombination and if 234 cannot be combined with 239,there is no reasonupon the same words to hold that 234, 235 and 236 orany two of them canbe combined. This case also shows the singular'transaction' in 239 cannotbe read as plural, why then should 'Section' or'kind' in 234 be read asplural.

8. So long ago as 1866 a Queen vs. Itworce Dome, 6IV. R. 83, theCourt held a joinder under Section 234 and Section239 was illegal. Heldthat when persons are charged for three separate anddistinct robberies,committed on the same night in three differenthouses, they must betried separately on each of these three charges. ( 6IV. R. 83.)

Other cases. See Weir, Criminal ruling, pp. 900 and

File1-Tilak Trial901 and 35 Cal.161 rr Bipin Chandra Pal.

9. There is thus a concensus of opinion against anycombination ofthe exceptions in Section 233. They must be takensingly and not cumu-latively. There is also authority against extensionof Section 234 byreading Section as Sections and thus opening thedoor for a budget ofoffences sufficient to crush a man by its veryweight. The solitary excep-tion is the decision in the Hind Sward/ cs-so., butthat is erroneous, andeven if correct it is distinguishable from thepresent case as I shall pre-sently explain.

VI.— ^' Hind Swaraj " Case.

Distinguishable. — The" Hind Swaraj" case isdistinguishable fromthe present case in several respects.

1. The Court regarded the charges of 124 A and 153 Aas alternatecharges for^^the purposes of Section 236 only as acase of doubt, but thereis no case of doubt in this case. The Court hadpower to deal withpunishment in appeal if the trial was legal.

2. In the case of doubt there can be a conviction onone offenceonly although several are charged and the AppellateCourt confirmed theconviction on 124 A only, but not on 153 A. The

File1-Tilak TrialCourt ought thereuponto have reduced the punishment, but it did not doso. However thepunishment imposed did not exceed the punishmentimposable onthe less grave offence according to Section 72 ofthe Penal Code. But inthis case the punishments are imposed both under 124A and 153 A.Besides three years, transportation is awarded,which could not be doneunder Section 72.

3. The facts are not the same upon the view of thecase taken bythe Appellate Court.

PINAL HEARING OF THE RrLE NISI 93

Ratio Decidendi.

1— SECTION.

1. The word Section cannot be read as plural, butmost invariablybe read as singular.

2. But the definition refers not only to the sameSection but thesame amount.

Even offences falling under the same section may notbe of the samekind within the meaning of Section 234. for example,if the amountof punishment differed as in the offences under

File1-Tilak TrialSection 454 and 457 ofthe Penal Code, they would not be of the same kind.

3. Section 234 does not speak of charges, it istrue, but only ofoffences. But as under Section 233 each distinctoffence is to be chagedseparately, it follows there can be only threecharges tried togetherunder Section 234.

II.— ACT.

1. The words " Act " and " Offence, " are notsynonymous terms.They cannot be equated. Offence is not equal to actbut only means anact punishable under the Code and any L/Ocal Law.(Section 4 clause (o).Act and offence cannot be substituted for eachother. If we substitutethe word " Acts " for " offences " in Section 234 weget this meaning : —"Acts are of the same kind when they are punishablewith the sarre amountof punishment. " But the Offence of 124A may becommitted by words,signs, ar representations. Surely these acts couldnot be of the same kindthough the offence is identical and the amount ofpunishment the same.

2. Mr. Justice Heaten holds that the one act ofpublication can cons-titute only one offence though punishable underseveral sections, but notpunishable cumulatively. This is obviouslyerroneous.

File1-Tilak Trial

{ i ) Here the publication is an act no doubt, butpublication itselfis no offence. The publication of the article is anoffence. But the articleis a series of acts so connected together as to formone transaction togetherwith the publication. Each word written is an act.The acts requisitefor 124 A are not the same as the acts required for153 A. Appropriateacts must be extracted from the article for eachoffence. Even when thewords are the same, the meaning cannot be the sameto constitute boththe offences.

(ii) But even if the act of publication be taken asconstituting theoffence, then one act does not mean only oneoffence. Each act may con-stitute several distinct offences seperatelychargeable and even separatelytriable and punishable. For example^ A fixes a gunwhereby he hurts B,disables C, kills D and sets a house on fire. Surelythis is not one offencepunishable under various Sections. They are distinctoffences punishableseperately, cumulatively and triable seperatelycinder Section 403.

Simialrly^ A, publishes an article whereby hedefames B, C, D andE. Each can complain under the Penal Code and A isliable to punish-ment seperately for each offence. The character ofC, D and E will not

File1-Tilak Trialbe vindicated by the exclusive complaint of B.

Jj.Jt JMNAL ilEAllIN(; OF THE RULE -MSI.

Therefore this publication constitutes two offences,under two Sec-tions against two distinct persons.

(iii) Sections 235, 236, 237 and 238 all recognisethat the same actmay constitute separable and distinct offences. Thisis more forciblybrouo-ht out in Sections 403 Clause 3 which allowssecond and third trialsupon the same acts.

Subimssion . — I therefore sumbit an act is not anofience and one actmay give rise to several offences all distinct.

Applicability of Section 236.

1. Section 237 is limited in its operation to thecase mentioned inSection 236 ( vSee I. L. R. 33 Calcutta 1256 at1263. )

2. Therefore conviction under Section 237 ispossible only if acharge under Section 236 is frameable. This isassumed in the judgmentin the Hind S-a'araj case by Mr. JusticeChandavarkar. But Section 236cannot operate with Section 234 cumulatively.Therefore no convictionis possible under Section 237. The reasoning

File1-Tilak Trialtherefore does not apply.

3. Weir 897: — "It can scarcely be meant that theelement of doubtis the governing point." This means doubt cannotconvert dissimilaroffence into offences of the same kind.

VII.— Sentences

1. If the trial is illegal there can be noconviction and no sentence.If it is legal, then the case must be consideredfrom two aspects depend-ing upon whether the transaction is the same ordifferent .

2. There is one acquittal and three convictions, andthere are threesentences ; one on each conviction.

3. Now if the transactions are the sarne^, therecannot be two sente-nces on 124 A, but one sentence only according toSection 7 of thePenal Code. See illustrations also. Furthermore ifthe charge on 124A and153 A are alternative under Section 236 there couldbe only one convi-ction and one sentence and that too for the offenceof 153 A only underSection 72 of the Penal Code. There cannot be 3sentences, not eventwo, but only one sentence and only one punishmentnot exceeding tw^oyears' imprisonment,

4. If the transactions are not the same but distinct

File1-Tilak Trialthen.

(/) The acquittal on 153 A on fist article is a barto the trialon 124 A of the first article under Section 403Clause 2;if Sections 124 A and 153 A are alternative underSection236 as the Prosecution contends.

True the order was passed after the end of the trialon124 A, but this is only formal. In substance thatwasdecided before the trial on 124 A commenced.

(//) There can be no punishment on 124 A, for, ifthe articletaken as a whole constitutes the offence of 153A asfoundby the Jury nothing is left for 124A, and thereforetherecan be no conviction or sentence on 124 A or viceversa.It i^s Goptended by the Prosecution that the articletaken

FINAL HEAEIXG OF THE RULE NISI. " 95

as a whole constitutes the offence of 124 A aud anditis simultaneously contended that taken as a whole it

constitutes the offence of 153 A. This isincomprehen-sible, but be it as it may, if the whole is thus

File1-Tilak Trialabsorbedby 124A, how can there be any conviction on 153 Aandvice versa. But if there be a conviction thereshouldbe one punishment only and that only on the chargeof 153 A according to Section 72 I. P. Code.5. Again if the contention be upheld that I Section153 A is chargedalternatively under Section 236 then the punishmentmust be regulated bySection 12 of the Penal Code. Therefore the minimumpunishment onlycould be given. Transportation for 3 years isillegal under Section 72.Much more so is both transportation and fineseparately.

Rule Absolute.

Illegal sentence would be good ground for adeclaration that the caseis a fit one for appeal upon the principle laid downJor appeal to the PrivyCouncil. (See I. L. R. ^2 Bombay 112 at page 150 andalso at page 535) : —"His Majesty will not review criminal proceedingsunless it be shown thatby a disregard of the form of legal process or bysome violation of theprinciples of natural justice or otherwisesubstantial and grave injustice wasdone. (See L/. R. 12 App. Cas. 459 j. According toSir Charles FarranC. J. an important question of Law or want ofjurisdiction would be a fitcase for appeal. This is unquestionably an importantquestion of law.

File1-Tilak TrialUnless corrected the illegal joinder would create aprecedent that woulddivert the law into new channels and proveprejudicial to the accused inother cases and open the door to grave mischiefs andserious miscarriageof justice. The form of legal process is disregardedby the mode of trialadopted. If the trial is illegal the convictions andsentences are illegal.To enforce them is to violate the principles ofnatural justice. A day'sdetention in jail is unjust. But there is no meansof remedying it exceptby an appeal to the Privy Council. This also comeswithin the rule ofjurisdiction. Such a trial goes to the very root ofthe jurisdiction of theCourt. The Court has no power to try a man on such amisjoinder ofcharges. There is no conviction. The Court is noteven competent topass any order in a trial void ab-initio. It is alsodesirable to obtain thedecision of the highest tribunal in the Empire. Withthe establishmentof an Appeal Court in England appeals to the PrivyCouncil should beeasier now. There is therefore substantial and graveinjustice and othergood reasons for a declaration that this is a fitcase for appeal in order toenable the Privy Council to determine whether graveand substantialinjustice has been done to the petitioner.

VIII»— Same Transaction.

File1-Tilak TrialThis term is nowhere defined in the Code.

Stephens defines it thus : — "A group of facts soconnected togetheras to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, acontract, a wrong, orany other subject of inquiry which may be inissue.'' fSee Cuninghamon Evidence p. 92. j

No principle is stated on authority to determinewhether the allegedacts constitute the same transaction or not. Theexpresstion is vague but

lUXAL HEARING OF THE lit'LE XISI.

tbe decisions are snflEiciently indicative. Thequestion was fully consider-ed and discussed in 15 Bombay 491.

Jardine J; — " In cases cited in Section 309 ofTaylor on the Doctrineof Election, the existence of concurrence orproximity of time appears tohave been the general criterion as to whetherseveral felonies could betried at the same trial." The passage referred towill be found atp. 260-1 of the 10 Edition. It runs as follows; — *'In cases of felonyhowever, this rule from motives of humanity havebeen considerablymodified as . . . several counts calculated toembarrass a prisoner inhis defence. It is now the practice for the Judge to

File1-Tilak Trialcall upon the prose-cutor to elect one felony, and to confine himself tothat unless the offen-ces though distinct in lazv^ seem to constitute infact but parts of one con-tinuous transaction, in which latter event anelection will be enforced."

The general criterion is continuity and Proximity oftime, but theremay be a break in time. When that occurs the actsmust be connectedby a specific pre-conceived criminal intent. This isthe link connectingthe acts. This was the view taken by Mr. JusticeBirdwood in the case( see remarks at page 495 of 15 Bombay. )

Ritle in 16 Bambay 424 : — The matter was furtherconsidered in 16

Bombay 424. The Court held : — We think that theproximity of time

combined with the case as to intention andsimilarity of action and result

. bring it within the words same transaction." Thiswas then

the final rule extracted from the cases in 15 and 16Bombay.

4 Bov2bay L. R. 789: — The same point came up forconsidera-tion in 4 Bombay L. R. 789. The principle ofcontinuity andcommon pre-conceived criminal intent was applied. In

File1-Tilak Trialanother casereported at 4 Bombay L. R. 920, the Court afiirmedthe principleof continuity and held that this was not necessarilybroken by a mereinterval of time. The Court held that " Theirinter-relation andinter-dependence must be considered. " Are they sorelated to one an-other in point of purpose or as cause and effects,or as principal, andsubsidiary, as to constitute one continuous action."

These are the criteria. Upon these criteria thepublications of 12thMay and 9th June do not form the same transaction.The subjects arenot the same. The authors are not the same. This wewould prove butfor the ruling of Justice Davar that the twopublications did not con-stitute the same transaction. There is an intervalof nearly a month.They were regarded as distinct transactions or acts.The Governmentsanction is not the same. There were two complaints,two warrants ofarrest, two inquiries by the Magistrate and twocommittals. Then in theHio-h Court there were two applications for SpecialJuries and two wereordered. The Judge did not regard it as the sametransaction. The Jury con-victed on each offence under 124A and the Judgepassed two sentences on124Aand a third onl53A. In the face of twosanctions, two complaints, two

File1-Tilak Trialwarrents, two inquiries, two committals, two ordersas to special Juries,'two convictions and two sentences in 124 A alone, athird on 153 A andacquittal on the other 153 A, it is impossible forthe Prosecution to contendnow, with any fairness, that the transactions arethe same.

The Advocate Generars Reply.

Mr. Robertson, the acting Advocate General, thenopposed the ruleon behalf of the Crown. The following is a summaryof his argument.

He said that mere iriegularity was not sufficient toallow appeal.The question was whether there was substantialinjustice done. Thequestion was what was the meaning of the words insection 234 C. P. C.

What is punished is really the *' act ; " the word "offence " reallymeant the act, which was made criminal by law. InSection 233the word offence meant act or omission madepunishable by one or momlaws. To lay a charge meant that the accused wascharged with doing anactor omission, not with "the offence." In murderthe accused ischarged with a certain act that caused death andthen it is said that theact is punishable under such and such section.

File1-Tilak Trial

Mr. J. Batchelor — But when once you name theSection and give tothe act the name of the offence given in thatsection, then how can yourefer to the act ?

Mr. Robertson — The charge is always for the act andoffence is definedto be act or omission punishable under one law oranother.

Turning to S. 234 C. P. C. Mr. Robertson said thattwo offences underS. 124A could surely be joined under it. But it doesnot prohibit anotheroffence being joined to any one thereof. In the caseof different chargesjoined in one trial, really there are separatetrials for each separate charge.And therefore 124A and 153 A could be joined.

J. Batchelor — You cannot join grievous hurt andtheft. How do yousay you caa join them if you add a third charge toeither. You have notmet Mr. Baptista's position that charges under 124Aand 153A cannot bejoined under S. 234,

Mr. Robertson: — It is clear that the two articlescould very well becharged together under Section 124 A and discussedtogether. ByJoining a charge under section 153 A no injusticewas doae. Thetwo articles formed part of a series as the Judgesaid. It was fortu-

File1-Tilak Trialnate for the Accused to be charged only with two ofthem. Mr. Robertson here read passages from the various articles andurged that thewhole was really one transaction in which offencesunder Sections124 A and 153 were committed. Where was theinjustice donethen? He said that his purpose was only to show thatthough there mighthave been irregularity still there was no injusticeto the Accused. If thewords under Sec. 234 weie to be given artificiallythe restricb^d meaningurged by Mr. Baptista, many criminals would be ableto evade justice. Inthe present case the point was really this. The casewas to be sent to thePrivy Council because the Crown omitted in regard tothe first Article acharge under S. 153A.

98 THE AUVOCATK GENERA.1/S UEPLY.

C. J.: — This assumes that offences of the same kindmeans acts fallingunder more than one Section.

Mr. R. — There can be no doubt about it. S. 2'Mallows charges underthree acts to be joined. It does not matter whatoffences the different actsgive rise to, so long as all the acts give riseexactly to the same offences. Iftwo acts come under one section, they can be joined.It does not matter

File1-Tilak Trialif one of these comes also under another section.And there Section 235comes to the help in regard to each of these twoacts and the offences theygive rise to.

, Counsel argued that the language of 235 and 236showed that . one actcould give riseto several offencesj The charges madecould, therefore, bevalidly joined and the Code provided that the Jurymust give a verdict oneach of the charges. Counsel quoted passages fromthe article showingthat they may come within 124 A, or under 153 A.There Section 236C. P. Code providing for alternate charges applied.

J. Batchclor — S. 235 contemplates more than oneoffence arising outof one act. S. 236 contemplates only one out of twooffences, which preciselybeing a matter of doubt. It seems to me that thecharges fall under both S.124A. and 153 A and I would proceed under wS. 235and not S. 236 at all.

Counsel then referred to S. 237 and said that thissection also couldapply. The Accused could have been convicted of 153A even though hehad not been charged thereunder. So then really hewas not prejudiced.There was no substantial violation of law. Ingenuityhad been exercised toshow irregularities. But that was not enough tojustify leave for appeal.There was no damage done to the prisoner, no

File1-Tilak Trialinjustice. Counsel said thathis suggestion was that the joinder of 153 A and 124A was reallyvalid under section 235, second part. The decisionof Mr. J. Candavarkarin the Hind Swarajya case supported the view he, Mr.Robortson, hadtaken. It was really unnecessary to have convictedunder S. 153 Aafter convicting under S. 124 A. But it was notillegal. Counsel also quotedfrom Mr. J. Heaton's Judgment in the case in supportof his contentionthat what had occurred in the case of Mr. Tilak wasonly an irregularity.Counsel quoted cases to show that the Privy Councilhad declined to allowappeals merely for violation of formal rules etc. Asto sentences, Mr.Robertson argued that they were immaterial unlessthe whole trial was tobe held to be vitiated and therefore null and void.The Judge, J. Davar,h.ad given reasons for the sentence awarded. ThePrivy Council would notinterfere merely to lessen the sentence.

Mr. Baptista having briefly replied to the argumentof Mr. Robertsonthe Chief Justice intimated that their Lordshipswould give a written,judgment in the case.

The High Court J ud2:meiit.

File1-Tilak Trial

On Tuesday the Sth September the Chief Justicedelivered theJudgment of the Court at ll-oO A. M. by which theride nisi was dis-charged, and Mr. Tilak's application for acertificate for leave to appeal to thePrivy Council was rejected. The following is thetext of the Judgment.

Emperor 1

r High Court Crown Side.

ViS )


Coram : — Scott C. J. and Batchelor J.

(Judgment delivered by Scott C.J.) Sth September1908.

This is a rule granted by us on a petition for acertificate that thedecision of the Judge and Jury in the case ofEmperor v/s B. G. Tilak is afit subject for appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Before granting the rule we required Counsel for thePetitioner tospecify the grounds upon which he was prepared tosupport his application.He then argued that a certificate should be grantedas prayed for each ofthe reasons specified in para 32 to 35 of the

File1-Tilak TrialPetition. After hearing hisarguments we decided that it was unnecessary to callon the Crown to showcause upon any points except points fhj, (s) & f t jof para 32 of thePetition and we accordingly granted a rule uponthose points.

The rule has now been argued. We can only grant therequired certi-ficate if in our opinion the case is a fit one forappeal. The test of fitnessis furnished by various decisions of the JudicialCommittee which show thecircumstances under which they will entertainappeals in Criminal Cases .It is sufficient to refer to In re Carcw 1897, A. C.page 719 and Dinhiditv/s Attorney- General of Znltdand^ 61 C. J. page 740in both of which theJudgment was delivered by I^ord Halsbury. In theformer case the rulewas stated thus; — 'It is only necessary to saythat, save in very except-ional cases, leave to appeal in respect of aCriminal investigation is not grant-ed by this Board.' The rule is accurately stated inthe course of the argument:In re Ddlet 12 A. C. page 459. ' Her Majesty willnot review or interferewith the course of Criminal proceedings unless it isshown that by a disregardof the forms of legal process or by some violationof the principles of naturaljustice or otherwise substantial and grave injusticehas been done. ' Inthe latter case the I^ord Chancellor said: — " Itappears to them that nothing

File1-Tilak Trial

100 THE HIGH COI'^.T JU1)GMP:NT.

could be more destnictive to the administration ofCriminal JHistice than asort of notion that any criminal case which wastried in any Colony fromwhich an appeal lav to this Committee can be broughthere on appeal, notupon the broad grounds of some departure from theprinciples of naturaljustice but because some form or technicality hasnot been sufficiently ob-ser\'ed. That is a principle which they believenever has been permittedand never, they trust, will be permitted. '*Therefore before granting thecertificate asked for we must be satisfied thatthere is reasonable ground forthinking that grave and substantial injustice mayhave been done by reasonof some departure from the principles of naturaljustice.

We are not sitting as Court of error. It is not forus to decide whethersuch injustice has in fact been done. We have to besatisfied that a reason-able case has been made out.

The Petitioner was tried before Davar J. and aSpecial Jur>- on a Chargeframed xuider Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, inrespect of an articlepublished in the Kcsari of which he was Editor andProprietor on the 12th

File1-Tilak Trialof May 1908 and on another charge under Section 124Aand one underSection 153A in respect of an article in the Kesariof the 9th June 1908 .He was found guilty and sentenced on each of thefirst and second chargesto 3 years' transportation and on the third chargeto a fine of Rs. lOOO.

It is now argued tnat the trial was illegal as beingin contravention ofthe provisions of Section 233 Criminal ProcedureCode, which lays downthat every distinct offence shall be a separatecharge and every suchcharge shall be tried separately except in the casesmentioned in the Sec-tions 234, 235, 236 and 239.

The Accused was originally charged separately beforethe ChiefPresidency Magistrate on the 29th June underSections 124 A and 153 A inrespect of the article of the 12th May and imder thesame Sections inrespect of the article of the 9th June.

He was committed to the High Court Sessions for thetrial on bothsets of charges.

In the Sessions Court ( as appears from the notes ofthe officialshorthand writer corrected by the learned Judge )the Advocate Generalappearing for the prosecution asked that the Accusedshould be tried onthe four charges at one trial, contending that the

File1-Tilak Trialarticle forming the subjectof the charge and certain other articlesintermidiate in point of time formedone transaction in which the offences charged hadall been committed andthat therefore the joinder was permissible underSection 235 ^ 1 j CriminalProcedure Code. The learned Judge objected that ifthe charges wereconsolidated there would be four charges. TheAdvocate General then said

• THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT. 101

lie woiild not put the Accused up on the chargeuuder Section 153 A inrespect of the first article .

The Accused who couducted his own case with theassistance of severalwell-known lawyers objected, first that there was noprovision of the Codeby which different char<^es could be amalgamated asproposed; and secondlythat though the articles were in the course of thesame transaction yet theyformed different subjects altogether and it would bemore convenient to havethem tried separately, and confusing if they weretaken together; thatSections 234 and 235 were permissive while section23- > was imperative;that the articles were separate articles dealingwith seperate aspects of thequestion and did not form part of one transaction.Eventuallv the leamedf

File1-Tilak TrialJudge said he thought it would be extremel}-desirable and in the interest ofthe Accused himself that there should be one trialand that the wholequestion should be before one Jury. The Accusedunder Section 233 wasentitled to be tried seperateK- unless theprovisions of Sections 234, 235and 236 come into operation. He had grave doubts asto the applicabilityof Section 235 as there would be some difficulty inholding that seperatenewspaper articles written week after week wouldcome tmder the sametransaction, but he had no difficulty in orderingthe trial imder Section 234provided the charges did not exceed three.

The trial then commenced on three charges, one underSection 124A onthe article of the 12th May and one imder Sectionl24A and another underSection 153 A on the article of the 9 th June withthe result above stated.

After the verdict and before sentence the Accusedapplied that certainpoints should be reser\ed and referred under Section484 Criminal ProcedureCode, for the decision of the Full Bench. The pointsmentioned are includedin the points raised in the present Petition. Thejudge however decUned toreserve any^ points.

Dealing now with the legal arguments addressed to usthat the trialwas altogether unlawful as having been in

File1-Tilak Trialcontravention of the terms ofSection 233 it is apparent that the argumentinvolves two assumptions (1)that the offences charged were not committed by thesame person in a seriesof acts so connected together as to form the sametransaction and therforedid not fall within the scope of Section 235 (Ij ;(2) jthat the exceptionsmentioned in Section Zoo are mutually exclusive. Thejustification for thefirst assumption is by no means apparent. Besidesthe prelimiuaiy discussionupon the points to which we have already referred wenote that at the trialin addition to the article of the 12 th May and the9th June other articles andnotes published by the accused in the A'r.^ar/fromthe 1 2th May to the 9th Juneinclusive were put in (Ex. E to I j. the Judge inhis Charge to the Jur>-pointed out that the subject of all the articlesincluding those of the charge

10^ 'I'HE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT. •

was and the adveut of the bomb. The Accused himselfwheu opeuiug hisdefence read to the Court a written statement inwhich he stated that thecharged articles were part of a controversy in whichhe had endeavouredto maintain and defend his views in regard to thepolitical reforms requiredin India at the present day. In this connection wemay also refer to [paragraph

File1-Tilak Trial26 of the Petition now before us. we think,therefore, that there are good resonsfor the contention placed before us by theAdvocate-General that the chargesall fall within the scope of Section 235 (1) .

Assuming, however, that the Advocate General'scontention just referredto is unsustainable, the Petitioner has still tomake good the second assump-tion viz. that the exceptions mentioned in section233 are nmtually exclusive.The words of the Section do not favour this view. Ifit has been intendedthat section 235 (2) or 236 should not be made useof in co-operation withsection 234 this intention could have been easilyexpressed. If the exceptionsare mutually exclusive the provisions of the section236 or 237 could neverbe invoked to prevent a miscarriage of justicearising from a failure to makegood all the details of a charge joined with twoother charges underSection 234.

For example, if A were charged with three thefts ina building within theyear and the evidence established that in one casethe theft was committedon the roof and not in the building the Accusedcould not be convicted ofsimple theft under the powers conferred by Section237 because the applica-tion of Section 236 would be negativeed by the merefact of the joint trialimder Section 234.

File1-Tilak TrialWe find it difficult to believe that the legislatureintended that a jointtrial of three offences imder Section 234 shouldprevent the Prosecutionfrom establishing at the same trial the minor oralternative degrees ofcriminality involved in the acts complained of. Forthese reasons we thinkthat the exceptions are not necessarily exclusiveand that sections 235 (2)and 236 may be resorted to in framing additionalcharges where trial is ofthree offences of the same kind committed within theyear.

It is of course possible for ingenuity to suggestcases in which the fullexercise by the Court of the permissive powersconferred by the Sectionwhich we have been dicussing may produceembarrassment. In such casesthe discretionary power of the Court still remainsto decline to avail itself ofits full powers.

The view which commends itself to us was also takenby another Benchof the Court in the recent case oi /mperaior \'lsTribhowandas Purshotamdas .In our opinion the learned Judge at the trial fthough he appears to haveoverlooked Section 234 {2) ) might have allowed thetrial to proceed on allfour charges without violating the provisions of thelaw.

File1-Tilak Trial

THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, 103

If we now for the purpose of argument assume thatthe Petitioner hasestablished the second assumption also, we havestill to be satisfied thatresonable grounds exist for thinking that grave andsubstantial injustice mayhave been done at the trial before we can grant thecertificate. As we under-stood the argument on the rule, it is not contendedthat injustice has beendone except in so far as the alleged disregard ofthe provisions of the Crimi-nal Procedure Code in itself constitutes aninjustice but we were urged togrant the certificate as the case would be importantas a precedent.

We do not think the Accused was in any wayprejudiced by whattook place at the trial. An Accused person may, itis clear, be properlytried and convicted in one trial under Section 124 Aor Sec. 153A on charges framed on three disconnected articles.How then can it be saidthat grave and substantial injustice has been doneby the arraignment andconviction of the Accused on three cognate chargesin respect of only two(and those not disconnected^ articles?

As regards the question raised by para 33 (s) and(t) of the Petition

File1-Tilak Trialwith respect to the number of separate sentencesimposed, the Jurj^ foimdAccused guilty of three distinct offences and theJudge awarded a punishmentfor them which in the aggregate is much below themaximum punishmentallowed for one of the offences under Section 124 A.There has, therefore,been no violation of the provisions of Section 71 ofthe Indian Penal Code.

For the above reasons we discharge the Rule. Beforeleaving thecase, however, we think it right to point out thatthe Advocate-Generalaccording to the note of the official shorthandwriter stated that the chargesunder Section 124 A and 153A w^ould be treated asbeing alternati\e charges,or charges framed in order to-meet the possibilityof one other set of factsbeing proved, in which case each offence might ormight not be proved.This may mean either that the second and thirdcharges fell under Section235 (2 ) or that they fell under Section 236. Thecharges as framed werenot expressed to be in the alternative and theverdict of guilty was givenin respect of each charge separately. There was, wethink, nothing illegalin this ; but it was the intention of the Crown thatthe second and thirdcharges should only operate alternatively. Theresult intended can now bearrived at by the excerise by the Government of itspowers imder Chapter29 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the

File1-Tilak Trialsentence imposedunder Section 153 A upon the third charge.

(Sd) B. Scott.

(Sd) S. J. Batchelor.

Certified to be a true copy.

This 10th day of September 190S,

(Sd) M. R. Jardine

Clerk of the Crown,

SANCTION TO PROSECUTE.

A. H. S.

24-G-OS.

Under section lOG of the Code of Criminal Procedure1898 His Excellencythe Governor in Council is pleased to order HerbertGeorge Gell, Commissionerof Police Bombay or such Police officer as may bedeputed by him for thispurpose to make a complaint against Bal GangadharTilak, editor and proprietor ofthe Kesari, a weekly Vernacular newspaper of Poonain respect of an article,headed^ the '-''Country'x Mififortunf'*' printed at

File1-Tilak Trialcolumns 4 and 5 page 4, and columns,and 2 page 5 of the issue of the said newspaperdated the 12th May 11)08 undersection 124 A of the Indian Penal Code and any otherSection of the said Code.( including Section 153 A. ) which may be found tobe applicable to the case.

By order of His Excellency.Dated Bombay] "^ the Governor in Council,

the 23rd June 1908. J ( Sd. ) H. QUINN,

Acting Secretary to Government,

Judicial Department.

P. T. 0.

Pursuant to the within written order, I herebydepute Superintendent Sloaneof the K. division, Bombay City Police, to make thecomplaint therein referred.

(Sd.) H. G. GELL.Head Police Office, Commissioner of Police,

Bombay. 24th June 1908. Bombay.

Ex. B.

SANCTION TO PROSECUTE.

A. H. S.

File1-Tilak Trial27-6-08.

Under section I'.'G of the Code of CriminalProcedure 1898 His Excellencythe Governor in Council is pleased to order HerbertGeorge Gell, Commissionerof Police Bombay, or such Police ofBcer as may bedeputed by him for thispurpose to make a complaint against Bal GangadharTilak, editor and proprietorof the Kf'!^a/-i, a weekly Vernacular newspaper ofPoona in respect of an article,headed " These remedies are not lasting " printed atcolumns 2, 3 and 4 of page 4of the issue of the said newspaper dated the 0thJune 1908 under section 124 Aof India Penal Code and any other Section of thesaid Code ( including Section1'>.'5 A. ) which may be found to be applicable tothe case.

Dated Bombay 1

the 20th June 1:108.)

By order of His Excellencythe Governor in Council.

(Sd. ) H. QUINN.Acting Secretary to Government,

Judicial Department.

File1-Tilak Trial

P, T. O,

Pursuant to the within written order, I herebydepute Superintendent Sloanof theiK. Divison, Bombay City Police, to make thecomplaint therein referred.

Head Police oflQce,

Bombay, 27 June 1908.

(Sd. ) H. G. GELL.Commissioner of Police,Bombay.

Ex. C.

Stamp Rs. 25." Re. 1.

(J.\'f( Halation of the Ma rai III leader printrd incolnmns 4 and ¦'> of jiagc 4 andcolumns 1 ajid 2 of page 5 of the issue of theKesari ncirspa/jer^ datrd 13thMay 1008, and having a footnote^ as translated,'-'•Tlds nen'spajjer, teas printed /a)id published at the 'Kesari' Printing Press, No.486, I\a?y(>/an PctJi Poenahg Bal Gangadhar Tila/c.'')

File1-Tilak Trial

THE COUNTRY'S MISFORTUNE ! !

No one will fail to feel uneasiness and sorrow onseeing that India, a countrj'wiiich by its very nature is mild and peace-loving,has begun to be in the condi-tion of European Russia. Furthermore, it isindisputable that (the fact of) twainnocent white ladies having fallen victims to abomb at Muzzafferpore willspecially inspire many Avith hatred against thepoople belonging to the party ofrebels. That many occurrences of this kind havetaken place in European Russiaand are taking place even now, is a generally knownhistorical fact. But we didno think that the political situation in Indiawould, in such a short time, reach its[a]-' a ] [Printed in En^l'sh P^'^'^"*^ '^'^^^' ^^^^'"^ ^^^^ ^^^ obstinacy and perver-within iparcuthesis.] ' sity of the white officialchss («) (bureaucracy) (a)

ot our country would (so soon) inspire with utterdisappointment the young generation solicitous forthe advancement of their

r/i r\r»„„?„„ ^ , i • countrj and impel them so soonto (follow) th&

[&] [Meaning, presumably, ins- , ,,. i r^ v *"»v/mcr

cnitablel rebellious path. But the dispensations ofGod are

extraordinary {b). It does not appear from the

File1-Tilak Trial

statements of the perse us arrested in connectionwith the bomb explosion case at

[ '¦ ] [ Bad, wicked ; a poison ^"zzafferpore, thatthe bomb was thrown through

leading a bad life.j *^® hatred (felt) for someindividual or simply

owing to the action of some badmash (c) madcap.Even Khudiram, the Domb-thrower, himself feels sorrythat two innocent ladiesof Mr. Kennedy's family fell victims (to it) inplace of Mr. Kingsford:what, then, should be said of others ? It is plainfrom the statements of thoseidentical young gentlemen, who took this work inhand by founding a secretsociety, that they were fully aware that it was notpossible to cause Bridsh ruleto disappear from this country, by such monstrousdeeds. None of the arrestedpersons have stated that the mere establishment of asecret society at the presenttime would do away with the oppressive officialclass. Some of the Anglo— Indianjournalists have cast ridicule on these young men byinsolently asking the question'* Will the English rule disappear by themanufacture of a hundred muskets or

ten or five bombs ? " But we have to suggest to thesaid editors that this is nota subject for ridicule. The young Bengali gentlemen,who perpetrated those

File1-Tilak Trialterrible things, do not belong to the class ofthieves or badmashes (c) ; had that

been so, they would not also have made statements

( c ] [ Bad, wicked; a person frankly to the Police,as ( they have done ) now.

leadin"- a uad life. ] Though the secret society ofthe young generation

of Bengal may have been formed like ( that of ) the

Russian rebels for the secrect assassination of theauthorities, it plainly

appears from their statements that it has beenformed not for the sake of

self-interest but owing to the exasperation producedby the autocratic exercise

of power by the unrestrained and powerful whiteofficial class. It is known

to all that the mutinies and revolts of thenihilists, that frequently occur

even in Russia, take place for this very reason;and, looking ( at the matter )

from this point of view, ( one ) is compelled to saythat the same state of things,

¦which has been brought about in Russia by theoppression of the official

class composed of their own countrymen, has now been

File1-Tilak Trialinaugurated in

India in consequence of the oppression practised byalien officers. There is

none who is not awere that the might of the BritishGovernment is as vast

and unlimited as that of the Russian Government. Butrulers who exercise

unrestricted power must always remember that thereis also a limit to the

patience of humanity. Since the partition of Bengal,the minds of the Bengalis

have become most exasperated, and all their effortsto get the said partition

cancelled by lawful means (have) proved fruitless;and it is known to the

world that even Pandit Morley, or now Lord Morley,has given a flat refusal

to their ( request ). Under these circumstances, noone in the w^orld, except the

wb ite officials, inebriated with the insolence ofauthority, will think that not

, ^ r ^ « 1 * even a very few of tbe people ofBengal should be-r,ji^[rf] [or proceed to "^ if t>

come turn-headed and (d) feel inclined (d) to commit

File1-Tilak TrialcomD- It excesses. ] ^^ ¦ i J.^ l i. l ^

excesses. Ji,xperience shows that even a cat shut up

in a house rushes with vehemence upon the person whoconfines ( it there ) andtries to kill him. That being the case, theBengalis, no matter however power-less they might be thought to be, are human beings;and should not the officialclass have remembered that, exactly like those ofother men, the feelings of theBengalis, ( too ), are liable to become tierce ormild as occasion demands ? It istrue that India having now been for many j^earsunder the sway of alien rulersthe fire, spirit or vehemence natural to the Indianpeople have to a great extentcooled do"wn; but under no circumstances can thisvehemence or indignationdescend to zero degree and freeze altogether. Old orexperienced leaders can,so far as they themselves are concerned, keep thisindignation permanently¦within certain prescribed limits with the help of (their ) experience or ( mature )thought: but it is impossible for all the people ofthe country thus tokeep their spirit, indignation or irritabilityalways within such bounds;nay, it may even be said without hesitation that theinhabitants of thatcountry in wdiich it is possible for this feeling ofindignation to always remainthus within prescribed bounds, are destined toremain perpetually in slavery. Itis not that our rulers are not aware of this

File1-Tilak Trialprinciple. English statesmenhave fettled the lines of British policy, fullybearing in mind that British

rule in this country is alien and of the people of adifferent religious faith.When one country rules over another, the principalaim of the rulers is self-interest alone; but the extent of sach self-interestis bounded in such a waythat the subjects might not get exasperated. What iscalled statesmanshipconsists only in this; and this very thing has beendesignated ( a ) enlight-ened self.interst ( a ) by some English authors.[ «]— [ « ] [ Printed in English British rule inIndia has been carried on on thiswithin parenthesis.] very principle, but the greatmistake that is

being committed in that ( connection ") is that theEnglish oflQcial class does not at all take theadvice or opinion of the subjectsor their leaders in the matter of ouradministration. The whole contractof settling in what the welfare of the subjectsconsists and in what their lossconsists has been taken by the white official classin their own hands. Andthey are vain enough to think in this wise. — 'Whatever thing we might do orwhatever policy we might decide upon in (the lightof) our wisdom or enlight-ened self-interest, must alone be uncomplaininglyaccepted as beneficial tothemselves by the people of India and they must

File1-Tilak Trialinvoke a blessing upon us( for the same ),' But owing to the spread ofWestern education, it isnot now possible for this condition to last (anylonger). However enlight-ened the self-interest of the rulers might be, Indiamust still be a loserthereby; and in order to prevent this loss the powerin the hands otthe white official class must gradually come intoour hands ; there is noother alternative ; such is nov.^ the view of manypeople in India and it isgaining ground. Such an impression being ultimatelyinjurious to the rulingofficial class, the white official class here hasbecome eager to suppress completelythe writings, speeches or other means which producethat impression ; and ifthey had been able to drive the car of the entireadministration solely accordingto their own views, many oppressive enactments likethe Prevention of ( Sedi-tious ) Meetings Act would by this time have beenpassed, and India would fullyLave become another Russia. But the experienc gainedfrom history, democraticpublic opinion in England and the awakening causedthroughout the whole conti-nent of Asia by the rise of an oriental nation likethat of Japan have come in theway of the oppressive policy of our white officialclass and have imposed somerestrictions on their imperial (autocratic) sway.However, the desire of the people

gradually to obtain the rights of Sn-ai-ajjia ( c )is

File1-Tilak Trial

[ ej ( Lit. one's own rule or growing stronger andstronger, and if they do noc

government; selfgovernment. ) get rights by degrees,as desired by them, then some

people at least out of the subject population ,being filled with indignation or exasperation, willnot fail to embark upon the com-mission of improper or horrible deeds recklessly.The Honourable Mr. Gokhalehimself had, in the course of one of his speches inthe Supreme LegislativeCouncil, given a hint of this very kind to ourGovernment in the presence ofthe Viceroy; and when fjala Lajpatrai was deportedwithout trial and theproclamation (? ordinance) about the prevention ofmeetings promulgated, othernative editors of newspapers also had, likeourselves, plainly given the Govern-ment to understand that if they resorted in thatmanner to oppressive Russianmethods (of administration), then the Indiansubjects, too, would be compelled

6

to imitate, partially at least, (the methods of) theRussian subjects! 'As yousow, so you reap' is a well-known maxim. For rulersto tell their subjects" We shall practise whatever oppression we like,deport any one we choose withouttrial, partition any province we like, stop any

File1-Tilak Trialmeeting we choose, or prosecuteany one we like for sedition and send him to jail;(hut) you, on your partshould silently endure all those things and shouldnot allow your indignation,exasperation or vehemence to go beyond certainlimits," is to show to the worldthat they do not know common human nature. Most ofthe Anglo-Indiannewspaper editors have committed this very mistakewhen writing on theAluzzafprpore affair. They have brougVit a chargeagainst the Indian leadersthat it was by the very writings or speeches of thesaid leaders who passed severecomments on the high-handed or contumacious conductof the English officialclass, that the present terrible situation wasbrought about: and they have nextmade a recommendation that Government shouldhenceforth place greaterrestrictions upon the speeches, writings ormovements of these leaders. In ouropinion, this suggestion is mosc silly. Just as whena dam built across a riverbegins to give way owing to the flood caused byexcessive rain, the blame forthe (mishap) should be thrown on the rain and not onthe flood, even so, if insociety there is any transgression of legal boundsin a few cases owing to thediscontent or exasperation engendered by theoppressive acts of an irresponsibleand unrestrained official class, the blame or theresponsibility for it must beplaced on the policy of the unrestricted officialclass alone. Take any man youlike; it is true that he does not see his real

File1-Tilak Trialstate. The crores of people, revolvinground the earth's axis along with the earth itself,think that (it is) the v/orld( that ) is revolving and not they themselves. Batwise men should, instead offalling into such a delusion, find out the truereason of any particular thing anddirect their attention to it. It is no use strikingidly and continually a ( pieceof ) rope after calling it a snake. The rule of theautocratic, unrestrictedand irresponsible white official class in India isbecoming more and moreunbearable to the people. All thoughtful men inIndia are putting forthefforts in order that this rule or authority,instead of remaining withthe said official class, should come into the handsof the representativesof the subject people. Some think that this thingcan be accomplished bysupplicating this intoxicated official class itself,or by petitioning the Govern-ment in England who exercise supervision over it.Some others think thisimprobable, and they have persuaded themselves intothe notion that, in accord-ance with the maxim, • the mouth does not openunless the nose is stopped ',unless a spoke is put somewhere into ( the wheels of) the car ( of the admini-stration ) of the present rulers, their desiredobject will not be accomplished.The opinion of this party is that whatever may bewanted ( by them ) should beplainly stated and it should be obtained by (following ) the path of ( passive )resistance. But to say that not even a single man

File1-Tilak Trialout of the thirty crores ( ofpeople ) in the country should go beyond these twopaths in the paroxysm of theindignation or exasperation produced by thisoppressive system of Government, islike saying that the indignation or exasperation ofthe thirty crores of theinhabitants of India must always necessarily remainbelow a certain degree

And it is impossible to fix such a limit for thewhole country. Just as a manwho cherishes a desire or makes an effort that whenthe sun in summer reachesthe meridian the arid country in Mar war shouldremain as cool as Darjiling orSimla, must fail ( to secure his object ), similarlyit is vain to entertain a desireor to make an effort that the indignation,exasperation or vehemence producedin the minds of the subjects by an unpopular systemof administration shouldremain necessarily within a certain limit at alltimes and in all places. If thereis any lesson to be learnt by our rulers from theMuzzafferpore bomb affair andfrom the statements of the young gentlmen implicatedin it, it is this alone; andwe humbly take permission to bring this very thingagain and again to theirnotice. We are aware that our Government will, byassuming a stern aspect(and) by the adoption of harsh measares, be able tostop immediately outrageslike the one that occurred at Muzzafferpore. Buteven if such means be necessary

File1-Tilak Trialat the present time to maintain peace, still thatwill not completely removethe root of the disease, and so long as the diseasein the body has not beenrooted out, no one will be able to guarantee that ifa boil in one part (of thebody) is cut away, another will not develop again insome other part. It is theKing's and the subjects' greac misfortune that suchtimes should befall a mildcountry like India which is naturally loyal andaverse to horrible deeds. Thereis no difference of opinion that those \< ho areresponsible for the maintenance ofpeace in the country should immediately stopoutrages of this kind on their coming10 light, but the remedies that are to be adoptedwith a view lo prevent therepetition of such horrible calamities should onlybe adopted with foresight andconsideration. It is now plain that not only has thesystem of Government inIndia become unpopular but also that the prayer mademany times by the peoplefor the reform of that system having been refused,even some educated peopleforgetting themselves in the heat of indignationhave begun to embarkupon the perpetration of improper deeds. Men ofequable temperament and ofreason in the nation will not approve of suchviolence; nay, there is even apossibility that in consequence of such violenceincreased oppression will bepractised upon the people for some time (to come)instead of its being stopped.But a glance at the recent history of Russia willshow that such excesses or

File1-Tilak Trialacts of violence are not at all stopped bysubjecting the people to increasedoppression. It is true that in order to acquirepolitical rights effortsare required to be made for several successivegenerations and thoseefforts, too, are required to be made peacefully,steadily, persistently,and constitutionally! But while such efforts arebeing made who willguarantee that no person whatever in society will goout of control? Andas such guarantee cannot be given, how would it bereasonable to say thatall persons who put forth efforts for acquiringpolitical rights are sedidous?This is what we do not understand. Just as it isdifficult to laydown a restriction that not even a tear or two mustfall from the eyes ofa man while his heart has become sorely afflicted bysorrow in the same mannerit is vain to expect that the unrestricted method ofadministration, under whichIndia is being ruled over in a high-handed andreckless manner, should becomeonly 80 far unbearable to the people that no oneshould become unduly exas-perated and resort to excesses on that account. Itmay be said that, with the

exception of some few individuals, the! educated anduneducated classes in thecountry are not as yet prepared to transgress lawfulor constitutional limits:nay, even such a desire has not risen in their

File1-Tilak Trialminds. Under such circum-stances to throw the responsibility of the horribleMuzzafferpore affair onthat class is adding insult to injury. It cannot bethat chese things are notunderstood by a wise Government of the twentiethcentury, but the intoxicationof unrestricted aathority and the earnest desire tobenefit one'a own country-men is so extraordinary that even wise men becomeblind thereby on certainoccasions. The calamitous occasion which hasbefallen India at the presenttime is of this very kind. There is no possibilityof the structure of British rulegiving way in consequence of the murder of highwhite oflacers. If one passesaway a second will come in his place, if the secondpasses away a third willsucceed, there is no one whatever so foolish as notto understand this; ButGovernment should take this lesson from theMuzzafferpore affair that the mindsof some (persons) out of the young generation havebegun to turn towards violenceon seeing that all ;. peaceful agitation for theacquisition of political rights hasfailed, just as a deer attacks a hunter, totallyregardless of its own life, after allmeans of protection have been exhausted. No sensibleman will approve ofthis excess or sinful deed. But it is impossible notonly for the subjects but

even for the King to avoid or to totally stop this

[/,] ( Inflicting ;upoa one's traga ( f) otdesperation, and traga (/) really speak-

File1-Tilak Trial

own person some iuiury in . • '. n ¦• .-, ¦,, ¦, ^i- «

order to bring evil or blame ^^S IS at all times theresult only of a climax ot

upon another. ) exasperation and despair. Truestatemanship, it

may be said, consists, indeed in not allowing thesethings to reach such^an extreme or ( critical )stage, and this is the very policywe are candidly and plainly suggestiog to Governmenton the present occasion.We do not think that we have done the whole of ourduty as subjects byhumbly informing Government ihat the affair thatoccurred at Muzzafferporewas horrible and that we vehemently condemn orrepudiate it. All heartilydesire that such improper things should not takeplace and that none fromamongst the subjects should have an occasion toresort to such extremes. But atsuch a time it must also be necessarily consideredhow far the ruling officialclass should, by utterly disregarding this desire ofthe subjects, try their patienceto the uttermost -, otherwise it will not bepossible to maintain cordial relationsbetween the rulers and the subjects and to carry onsmoothly the business ofeither. We have already said above that theMuzafferpore affair was notproper (and) that it was regrettable. But if thecauses which give rise to itremain permanent in future exactly as they are at

File1-Tilak Trialpresent, then in our opinionit is .not • possible that such terrible occurrenceswill stop altogether;and it is for this very reason that we have on thisvery occasion suggestedto Government the measures which should be adoptedin order to put a stopaltogether to such undesirable occurrences. The timehas, through ourmisfortune, arrived when the party of * Nihilists, 'like that which has arisen inEussia, Germany, France and other countries, willnow rise here. To avoid this con-tingency, to prevent the growth of this poisonoustree is altogether in the hands ofGovernment. These abscesses affecting the countrywill never be permanently curedby oppression or by harsh measures. Reform of theadministration is the only

9

medicine to be administered internally for thisdisease; and if the official classdoes not make use of that medicine at this time thenit must be considered agreat misfortune of all of us. The Governmentofficial class may jDerhaps dislike thiswriting of ours, but we cannot help it; for, as apoet has said, words both sweet andbeneficial or hard to obtain. What we have saidabove is, in our opinion, true andreasonable and beneficial also to both the rulersand the subjects in the end.lf in spiteof this, our writing proves to be of no use, it mustbe considered a great misfortune

File1-Tilak Trialof the country. What else.' And when once amisfortune overtakes (one) who cantell what calamities will befall (him) in future? Noone desires calamities or diffi-culties; but sometimes God does not leave it in ourhands to avoid them. The pre-sent affair is becoming one of this sort; and if theGovernment official class do notrecognize this fact, what can we do? Our dutyextends to the giving of a hint; andwe are discharging that du<-y, remembering God andTruth. It is our desire alsothat the state of the country should not becomedistressful; but at the same time,we must also exercise the right which we have ofinsisting that the present into-lerable system of administration should be reformedas soon as possible. It is nouse being bewildered for nothing. We are aware thatthe white official class or theAnglo-Indian journalists will most astutely utilizeMuzzafferpore afl:air to lessenthe vehemence of our efforts; nay, theirself-interest also lies in this. But it is ourduty to strongly condemn also this perversion of thetrue state of things by Anglo-Indians, while condemning the desperate and suicidaldeed perpetrated at Muzzaff-erpore. Just as it is the duty of the subjects toassist in preventing the murder ofruling officials, so also it is the duty of therulers to admit (the voice of) publicopinion into the administration (of the country)according to the present times,instead of keeping it (i. ("., the administration)irresponsible. The scripture layingdown the duties of kings is declaring at the top ofits voice that it is not possible

File1-Tilak Trialfor the ruling individuals to forget this duty or todeliberately disregard it and tomake the subjects only discharge their dutiespunctiliously; nay, ( it further saysthat this) will be beneficial to neither party.Where this duty is disregarded, therethe occurrence of calamities, some time or other,like that at Muzzafl:erpore isinevitable. Therefore, if the rulers wish that theseundesirable incidents shouldnot come to pass, our suggestion to them is thatthey should in the first instance^impose restrictions upon their own system ofadministration itself, and it is onlywith that object in view that to-day's article hasbeer; v^itten,

[ His Imperial Majesty's High Court, Bombay,

Translator's Office, 2nd July 190S.] A trueTranslation.

N. L. Masker,

Third Translator.

10

Ex. C.

[ TIkj fiiUowhuj /'s ihf DrUjiiKil Maratlii k'.i'tof the (irl'ide of icJa'ch E.r. C. ik(I translHtviii, ]

File1-Tilak Trial

^^['4r ifrî i&percnt;5fr srk 'Tta;?TTH ^rsst q^c^r,^\^ ?t^ g'^ssf^ ^t^^r q2rn=^2TT ^m^r^ m^-^:rt ^?T7t ttf^ I MN^K ^. ^siw ?r=l&percnt; sr^ stwt^^mr^ ^t^tft î^^ 3Tf|cT ^

5T^T 'AT^T. 1^^ s^^-R^T5T sTiff^^ &percnt;s[TîTFîr sTrnwirq^TT^ ( Lureaucracy ) f 5Tr?jrr^ TtF^rr ^th'^ 3TT'4te=^3TT ^qi^ ^^r^r, ^ ^^^snp^t^ q^frs-^^qr ^\m-a\ ^r^^t-

q^3TT ^TTSTf^ 5|f^ 5TT55T q^^R^TF ^ ^^RTfT ÎT^T^T^S qjS^ 3Tt|; JfiT ^^T ^^ ÊFT ?

^^Ffr '' wf{\ #^1 fw ^^ Tt=^ sj-ycT 5ft^&percnt;^5n?r ^t ^^^t ^pi ^ ^{:r ? " 3Fn ^5;-î^ 3Tr| w, fT ^qf [?rr=5rr f^r^ ^r^l. c^n ^w^rttÎ" if^^^TRV ^tt ^fe 'tt^ &percnt;?3n- ^

ftcTFT H^f ^TFI ^RJTr^RrTt ^TrTR", | WrT ?Tr|r?T^H^; 5Trm 5T^T 5:SR qifl^ ^T"^^ ^^1itpj^JTicT tf^^ ^Trft g^^TTrT ITFfr, 5?^ fl'^^f VTPTq^. ^TcRRqjRpq' ^^T^ Î&percnt;?RT ^-

11

^fTr7 c5^t^ sf^^T" mit^, 4m^4\ ^^sER f^^îT ^3TT&percnt;l&percnt;?Tr ^^ ^T^ 3RT?t. q^?| ^M^.I^HTBT^VR, RcJRRqr^

^TsTTq&TR ^w.w^ arrriT ^qy?TrTT^7?jrT cfr^'"^ wz\=^^rv-^T^n^f î TrriT^rr ^ct ?Tr?j^r^rT^&percnt;, ft 5TRT=^T 'Tr^T 3Ti'TO<^5 ^^ ^^^^TPT^ ^^ ^^^'^ TTlt^. ^Jifm ^PT ^TTT ST'^^' #cRT ^^W

File1-Tilak Trial^R^î" ^ ^JfrTi W^ 5n&percnt;RTT5i-^3TT ^^^T^ ^ ^Wf•T, srn^ rfi ^Z^ZtJ ^tcTTW, iq^qoTR, ?tiT^' 5TTI^^^^^R "(JrfT^r ^1^7 ^5T^^ ^ ^\ I

^ w^ ? 3Tn&percnt; 3T^[ ^^r ^t srr^r ^tt ^"^ u^r^^^fFRRriT ^stt?: ^wf^ t^

Tv^ ^WI^ 37mm 713^ q^r^ ^T^^ ^?T¥?T=?T 5T^^ SfT^cpf^ ^^H^^ ^Fjfft'r q^Nilc^ ^^^T^^^RIT 3?1tT ft^ ?W, ST^fr 3TT^r ^TSSTTTf s?T^fRT. ^ff '^T^f ^^T^ ^t^M ^^^^T

W^ c3ri=^T î^JTT^ 3??: ÎTFRfT ^^?TR?ir anf. ^m^\^cTq5t^R5 ^fTUJ-JI-Mic^T^^^TFT ^T 5ft^ =qiT^^ ^^ 3T^ JTTfr. 'M5TRnt&percnt;T ^=^ Tl^ 3TTf^ ^^^^TRTt^q^RTTT ^'J^TP^ f FT 5?T^J q^tft f^^STW STIrf qr, R[^^^ îqj ^^R5 ]q'TJTf&percnt;&percnt;q'r

3TT'ir^ q^ ^nrTTrT. 5#r^ ft^'î^rRRi^ jrr sj^pîiw^=^ sttI . jtts^ 'tr 3n&percnt;-

14

^?T &percnt;tc5, ^^RT TRJT ?R &percnt;^RT N^; t 5T^^^^rfcT^ ^pjfl^ J^ ^. qw U^TWÎ

^^ ^5FT^r 3TTtrT, Cr 'TIS 5IT'TJT^=^^ M^-i^lNM^^^PRT^ ^SjtrT &percnt;rRfr qifl^. ^T ^Tc^Tf-

=^Rm T&percnt;^ TM^ ^T'mir ^^ra ?t5^ îrfcT ^"irr?:^f. 'm fr R^7nTi=^ ^fFir — 3TTFr

5Tn&percnt; ^M!i4'J|l^' 5TT1IT ^TT SRT'fr ^=^RT5TT^. flT^"i? ^^ ^^^^ STW^ ^^^ 3T^ ^TRf

File1-Tilak Trial371^7 ot^ R^'<^ 1&percnt;^ 3To1^ ^Rrff, 3m ^n^RRTJTWT ^55I3F^T^ ^f^Tl ^TF ^T^' 3TUT&percnt;g^ ^cfs^T 5Timt W, 3T^ SHflt^ ^3cT ^TIT. 3T&percnt;^T^TPHRT SF^?: ^f ?f^ 3TTR f^d^WT

f^^R^ quqr^ 5T&percnt;q^7 ^T'^^lr sr^ q^ ^ ei^fr^T=Cr ^^]^]^^ ^-^j sn^. qw ^r^-3n=?rrCr ^r^^ ^^t ^r^^ f&percnt;^R ^ti^jtqn&percnt;&percnt;; F^^fr tt^^ stti^ it^t3n=^3nTr^:^

^^?^ U^ ^^^^T ^^Z^K ^T^RT =^c5^ ^^ ^tt- ^^'llj. ^'^^^^^1

Tj^^ 3nT2T ?r,tt, ir^Ji^ sttI, | ^^j m m^^=^ 'm. t"^?fr ^îr ^îrig^sTTcT 5f^ Ct'^ 5tttt=^3TT ?t^ ^^ ^fCr; ^nr^r fi^j^^^sr^^ str^ st^r srfirî?! ^f^ ^-

cqi^ ^T cRfqRit &percnt;"'2TT qrfl^cT W 3TR^^r?TI^&percnt;^t T?:^??:!^ 'J^^lt'^TT STlt^.^T&percnt;2rT^^^^Tt, s?iR^ ^ ^^^ ' Rf^f^^St ' =^r ^r TST ^T^ fTTî-unl, ^^T=^ ?Tr STIclt ^^

w.]^^^\ 5r7 ^fR3n=^T jti^m. u^t^^'t s'-^r'^t ^^ fi=^^^r €j ^ Cttisr qistcr

^C3n=^ ^^r 3TTf ; ^ ^T^ ^53n=^T 3ri&percnt;^RR'T ^TSTll^sf ^^>T ^^"JTR ^T^r rIT ^'3TT^t ^^'^ 'TIS ^"^ ^JT^^ qTlt&percnt;. 3THT=t tM^'n ^TW^lij ^P'^WAm^m ^s:rf&percnt;cT 3Ti'5l3T^R^, T'JT ^T^ 3TT?I=^T 5,e5T^ ^1^1; ^^"^ TT^pr^cjt?|- ^Z'-^JZ^^]^ Jlt^ 3Tn^ f^^T^R^ W

-4^^^ T^+r ^. 5TT^7 ^ î ^ ^ti'^^ sttI ^ 5Tra=^T?ptt^" ^ sttm ^rj?Ci ^^^

File1-Tilak Trialq^Cf=sr :3W^ ^T 5TT^^ cR I TT^ jfrs ^^T=sr li^^^^¦^^ qrft^; ^^^^ ^^r l m^TTcf-^T 5&percnt; 3Tt5^^ m^^ 5^ ^^r îrt sr?! ^ml^ trR'r cîff ^fttI 'i 3R^ f&percnt;î ^^

^TTlf, rR ^r^ 5TI^7 CRT ^^ ^"iTR ? |^T^T ^ tt^5?TJTir ^[^T 3TTf ; STTRT q^>'R:RT5TTRT ^Tc^^ ^??^?r d" ^^ ^m 5r^TRn?T 3TTff. ^T=CrR'^fcr ^S?R ff^ ?R, I STTfTRTCr&percnt;^ 3TTt; T'JT rqT=^SRt^ ^##7 5:^ ^^^TT^ ^tf^Pid^-'^T ^5^^ 3'<^^ 3TriT=s2TT 5iqc5Tp5fr ^j^Ru w,^twm^ ^jfr" ^^MiM ^F^^r wf\^ ^ 3Tr^'r ^rr^^r arrif;

5|T^-f'l&percnt;3R OTTÎ^ ^ ^ f&percnt;2fT^ ftrr3Trf r^n^^rCr ^r^R Rq-'-:r ^^, t 3TRT=^

'^4 5TT| c3TT5r?TT'^'=^ • , i j.context it presumably" refers to repression mean?Repression means not only stop-Lord Morlev as a philosopher ping future growth butnipping off past growth als3expoundiug fche priuciples of the ^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^progress 0£ thf^ caûses whichart of government. ) r- j- o

have given birth to the nation in India, which have

^''\-. ^^^ ^ ^'';. ^*'"^° .^^ developed the nationand which have created the

from their vows, practices, pnn- , r. • > •> •. i

cip les or ideals ) national fire tor the rise otthe nation, and to drag

those (causes) backwards by palling them by the leg

is called a retrograde or repressive policy. Liberty

File1-Tilak Trialof speech and liberty

of the press give birth to a nation and nourish it.Seeing that these had

begun to turn India into a nation, the officialclass had for many days

entertained the desire to smash ( c ) both of( e) ( Lit, bring a cudgel ^-^ - xi • j i. j •

there; and they have gratmea their ardent desire

^^'"""^ ' ^ by taking advantage of the bomb inBengal.

Now the question arises, will this repressive policybring about that whichis in the mind of the official ? The first desire ofthe ofiicial class is thatbombs should be stopped in India, and that the mindof no one shouldfeel inclined towards the manufacture or thethrowing of bombs. That theauthorities should entertain such a desire isnatural and also laudable. Butjust as he who has to go towards the North goes tothe South, or, he Avho isbound for the East takes the way to the West, in thosame manner the autho-rities have taken a path leading to the veryopposite direction ( of their goal ).This is exactly what is called infatuation. Thisaberration of the intellect

i

File1-Tilak Trial

17

suggests coming destruction ; and seeing thatGovernment has adopted a

repressive policy, ( we ) feel extremely grieved (to^ ' think ) that more sorrowful days arehenceforward

^^^^' ) ( cZ ) in store ( d ) for the subjects andthe authorities

See how the understanding of the Government hasbecome fatuous. The authoritieshave spread the false report that bombs of theBengalis are subversiveof sosiety. {There is as wide a difference betweenthe bombs in Europe desiringto destroy society and the bombs in Bengal asbetween the earth and beaven.There is an excess of patriotism at the root of thebombs in Bengal, while the

bombs in Europe are the product of the hatred felt* for selfish millionaires (e). The Bengalis are notanar-

chists but they have brought into use the weapon ofthe anarchists ; that isall. Tha anarchist murdering the President in Parissimply because he is thePresident, is one man ; while the madcap patriot ofPortugal throwing a bombat the King of Portugal because he suppresses the

File1-Tilak TrialParliament is a different( person ). The anarchist who murders a millionairein America for the onlyreason that he is a millionaire is one man, whilethe exasperated Russian patriotwho throws a bomb in despair because the Czar'sofiBcers do not grant the rightsof the Duma in Russia, is difiereat. Xo one^ shouldforget that the bombsin Bengal do not belong to the first category but tothe second. The bomb inPortugal efliected a change in the system ofgovernment in Portugal and theministry of the new boy-monarch had to abandon theprevious repressivepolicy. The most mighty Czar of Russia, too, hadperforce to bow down beforethe bomb, and, while making repeated attempts tobreak up the Duma, was atlast obliged to establish it as a matter of course.That the bombs came to astop in Portugal, or, that the series of bombs inRussia did not lengthen will notbe set down by any one to the credit of the policyof repression. New desiresand new ambitions have risen amongst the people andare gathering strengthevery day; such was the interpretation put uponbombs by the statesmen of boththe aforesaid countries; and accordingly theychanged the character of theadministration in such a way that the desires andthe ambitions of the peopleshould at least be partially gratified and that theyshould not become utterlydesperate and resort to violence.

The present repressive policy of Government is of

File1-Tilak Trialtwo sorts. First, thevery manufacture of bombs is to be made impossible,and, secondly, such mea-sures are to be taken that the people should notfeel inclined at all to manu-facture aud throw bombs. After tbtj parrot is firstput into the cage, the dooris closed. Accordingly, Government first disarmedthe people. In order thatthe caged parrot should feel delight only inremaining within the cage, peoplewho are fond of pleasure and sport, makearrangements for ( providing itthere with ) sweet fruits and grain and water. Batthe Indian Government hasnot only closed the door of the cage, but it hasalso commenced to pluck thewings and break the leg ( of the parrot ) in orderthat it should not go out ( ofthe cage ) ! Even the tyrannical rulers of Europedid not disarm their subjects;even a savage race like the Musalmans did not disarmthe Hindus while exer-cising their imperial sway over India. Then, why didthe English do so.^ If2

18

common muskets and coommon swords be in the hands ofthe subjects, they cannever equal the military strength ( of Government ).If there is nothing detri-mental to the military strength ( of Government )even in allowing the peopleto be with arms, then why did the English commit the

File1-Tilak Trialgreat sin of castrating anation ? The answer to this question is that themanhood of the nation wassl'.iin by the Arms Act in order that the uufhorityexercised even by pettyofficials fr«m day to day should be unopposed andthat the selfish administrationmight be carried on all right without any bitch (and ) without granting thesubjects any of the rights of swarajjja ! TheEnglish have not got even as muchgenerosity as the Moghuls and they have not even asmuch inilitary strength as theMoghuls. As compared with the imperial sway of theMoghuls, the EnglishEmpire in India is extremely weak and wanting invigour from the ]Doint cfview of military strength. The Emperor Aurungzebeexercised tyranny ofvarious kinds over the Hindus from the point oi viewof religion though nottrom the point of view of the distribution of wealth; and his ten or twenty lakshof troops also perished completely during his Deccancampaigns of ten or twentyyears. Still the Empire of Delhi lasted for ahundred and fifty years, albertin a hobbling manner, after his death. If theEnglish army in India were to beconfronted by difficulties similar to those whichAurungzebe's forces encountered,

then the English rule will not last in India even

{f){LU.. a tenant or farmer f^j, quarter of a centuyafter ( that ). The principalhaving no nghC ot occu- ^ j \ / r r

File1-Tilak Trialpancy. ) reason of this is that the English remainin India like

< )• ( o) ( ^'^f" Passengers temporary (f) tenantsor mere ((f) birds of passage (o')-

upon the road, wayfarers, ) ^ -^ p ^i x. ,. ^ • t j-^ il •

The residence of the English m India not being

permanent, and the English authorities as well asthe English merchantshaving a covert aim at enriching England, they are,quite naturally, notready to give into the hands of the natives anyportion of the ruling jjowerafter making a separate division ( of the same ).Had the Moghuls exercised( their ) imperial sway over India, for the sake ofthe prosperity of the landof their original residence, by sending out officerslike temporary tenants,then the Moghuls, too would have been obliged to beilliberal in dealingwith Princes and Chiefs or village institutions,like the English themselves,and there would have been no other alternative butto disarm the subjects.Owing to the power given by Western science and thehelplessness producedamongst the subjects in consequence of their beingdisarmed, the administrationcan be heedlessly carried on without any hitch ( and) without even a considera-tion of the desires or the aspirations of thepeople. Owing to the bomb thisstate ( of things ) has not remained permanent. The

File1-Tilak Trialsubjects, armless; and theGovernment, admittedly powerful owing to the modernscience of arms. Up

to this time there was no means at all forGovernment(A) ( Lit, estinaate.) ^^ ^^^^ ^j^^ ^^^^ ^^^^people, becoming disappointed

owing to some acts of Government, get exasperatedand become even turn-head-ed. How was Government at all to know that thetyranny of its acts hagbecome unbearable to the subjects ? What happenedusually up to this timev/hen Government did any act and the subjectsdisapproved of it? The peoplelased to submit petitions, to prefer requests; theauthorities used to say that itwas temporary froth, that it would subside, in ashort time, of itself. The people

19

l)ecome despondent, the impatient fretted and fumed-within themselves in

exasperation, and the turn-headed, in their ownviolent emotion, burnt their

bodies and in a fit of passion made an offering ofthemselves alone,-without

even any report of ony kind reaching the ears ofGovernment; such was the

File1-Tilak Trialstate ( of things ) up to this time. The turn-headedmen destitute of arms

became provided with arms in consequence of thebomb, and the bomb reduced

the importance ( i ) of military strength. Unless a

» ) ( it-) awe.) beginnisg be made to divide wealthand authority

with the sabject, with greater liberality than wasshown by the Moghuls, England

will not henceforward be able to carry on theadministration, without any hitch,

through officers having (only) a temporary (interestin the country). The bcmb is

not a thing like muskets or guns. Muskets and gunsmay be taken away from the

subjects by means of the Arms Act; and themanufacture, too, of guns and muskets

without the permission of Government, may bestopped; but is it possible to stop or

to do away vvith the bomb by means of laws or thesupervision of officials or

the busy swarming of the detective police ? The bombhas mora the form

of ^knowle dge, it is a ( kind of ) witchcraft, itis a charm, an amulet. It

File1-Tilak Trialhas not much the features of a visible objectmanufactured in a big factory.

Big factories are necessary for the bombs requiredby the millitary forces of

Government, but not much ( in the way of ) materialsis necessary to prepare five

or ten bombs required by violent, turn-headedpersons. Virendra's big factory

, . , , ^., , , . , of bombs consisted (/) of one ortwo jars and five or

(y ) ( Z?i., was atoieil in. ) . -, ^

ten Dottles; and Government chemical experts are

at present deposing that the factory was, from ascientific point of view, faultleesslike a Government bomb-factory. Should notGovernment pay attention tothe true meaning of the accounts published in ( thecourse of ) the case ofVirendra's conspiracy ? Judging from the accountspublished of this case, the for-mula of the bomb does not at all appear to be alengthy one and ( its ) processalso is very short indeed. The power of keeping theknowledge of this form^ilaa secret from one who is turn- headed, has not nowbeen left in the laws ofGovernment. This knowledge is not a secret inEurope, America, Japan andother countries. In India it is still a secretknowledge. But when the numberof turn-headed ( persons ) increases owing to the

File1-Tilak Trialstringent enforcement ofthe policy of represion, what time will it take forthe magical practices,the magical lore of Bengal to spread throughout inIndia ? The labour ofacquiring this lore will not be as hard to those whoare turn-headed as thelabour of bringing their brains again to a normalcondition; and even inputting this lore to a practical use there is verylittle possibility of theexasperation being even calmed down through aMagistrate, owing ( to theplot ) being frustrated by the skill and vigilanceof the detective police.To speaiv in ( the language of ; hyperbole, thisfactory can be brought intoexistence in a trice and ( also ) broken up in atrice ! Therefore, how canthe nose-string of the law be put on theseturn-headed wizards of the

( M ( LH„ Act about bom^.s. ) ^"""^^ \ ^^^"^ ^^"Explosives ( k ) Act was passed

in England ( about ) ten or fifteen years ago. the

20

lornb had not attained such a form of knowledge ( asat present ). The bomb

had not ( then ) become a ( / ) mere toy ( / ) ofthe

*^f^i'i' ¦/ ^ ^ \ '''"'' *^^ '^"''^ Western

File1-Tilak Trialsciences. At that time elaborate(m) appli-

01 tae body, as it were. ) \ j ff

ances, too, were required: also special materials( ?u ) Lit,, mauy,) were recjuired and the factoryalso used to be a big

one. Such tings can be prevented by law; but w'henscience begins to exhibit wonders like the bomb inmere sport ( and even ) whilewalking, talking (and) sleeping, how can thesesimple sports of science be puta stop to ? The Westerners propitiated the goddessof science for ( securing )commercial progress and military stregth. How willit do to accept only thegift of the blessing of the propitiated goddess andto refuse only those thingswhich that very goddess may be doing in mere sportin order that no one maybecome intoxicated with the bestowal of theblessings ? While the knowledgeof the science of the Westerners is being thuseasily obtained ( by people ) everyday. and w^hile new discoveries are being daily madethat produce terrificpowers in no time with a simple process from commonchemicals themselvesv.hich are constantly required for trade andindustries, how long will Govern-ment stop, by legal restraints, the current of thesport of scientific experts ?In our opinion. Government are going to putthemselves aad the subjects to lossfor nothing, by pursuing impossible things. If theperfect state to whichscientific knowledge has attained in Europe and

File1-Tilak TrialAmerica be considered, ( one )has to say that Government has been engaged in thevain attempt of makingan impossibility a possibility. At such ( a ) time (as ) this, chemists, personsengaged in industries and petty manufacturers cannotfail to be subjected tounjust compulsion for nothing. The object desired byGovernment cannot beaccomplished by the Explosives Act, but, on theother hand, it will serve as aninstrument in the hands of the police and the pettyofficials to persecute good

men. This effort to impose (//) a Prohibition (//)upon^ij^/ ^''^ ^ * '^ oawaj the scientific knowledgeabout bombs and the materials

( for making bombs ) is vain. If bombs are to bestopped this is not the proper means ( for it ) ;Govrrnment should act in such away that no turn-headed man should feel anynecessity at all for ( throwing )bombs. When do people who are engaged in politicalagitation become turn-headed .' It is when young ( political ) agitatorsfeel keen disappointment( by being convinced ) that their faculties, theirstrength and their self-srcri-fice cannot be of any use in bringing about thewelfare of their country inany other way than by acts of turn-headedness, thatthey become turn-hea-ded. Government should never allow keendisappointment ( to take hold )of ( the minds of ) those intelligent persons whohave been awakened ( to

File1-Tilak Trialthe necessity of ) securing the rights ofsiraraji/a. Government should notforget that when the desires and aspirations of theawakened intelligentpeople spread throughout the nation and begin rudelyto awaken the v/holenation, the disappointment instead of decreasingbecomes all the more keen,if this process of awakening is stopped at such atime. Government has passedthe new * Newspapers ' Act with a view to put a stopto the process of awakening;and, therefore, there is a possibility of thedisappointment assuming a moreterrible form and of turnheadedness being producedeven amongst people of

21

thoughtful and quiet disposition. The real andlasting means of stopping bombsconsists in making a beginning to grant theimportant rights of swaraj;/(( ( tothe people ). It is not possible for measures ofrepression to have a lasting( effect ) in the present condition of the Westernsciences and that of thepeople of India.

[H. I. M.'s High Court. Bombay,Translator's Office, 7th July 1908.]

File1-Tilak TrialA true translation.N. L. MANKAR,Third Translator,

M. 579.

22

Ex. D.

[ The followliig is the origiiud Marathi text of thearticle of ivJi/ch Ex. D. isn translation. ]

I ^qrq feq^T^ ^RfrCfrT.

^^^Tft^ ijcT q^r ^^ ^¦î fl^^rR^nc^^R^^ ^cT #^^^Îtt 3t^. sr^trR^r^ ^-^RrCr 51^ 3n|, ^^ ^\^ f|psTR&percnt; ^zro:îric-j-^Ni^ ^î^^^rr ^r^ ti^ fri^ ^

*4rw iFT^ ^r^ ? ^^^ sr^ ^rw^ 3^ ^t^ #ôt ^=^ ^^1^ ^^"i^^^Cr î^ ^' ^ îr^rfr^ ^rk^ftos, ^r-'-^^ff[^3TWT?rT=^ sttt^ 3ti&percnt;. sfir^^^^TT ^rk-37f^3n^5|T 5^Rff ^^^Ti^RT srfrRq: srfl , ^ ^dqtcfi^sff^nrr^ srr-qcsqr^T ^/r-Hdi-^-î \n\-5^ ^cq^ iTrTRT. ^r^7 ar^rrf^s ^n^, ^r^ 3HTffet=l ^c^r ^trt ^q^fr^cT stto«T]&percnt;, iîqj^. qiR^ ^^tcT ^r&percnt;isT=^ ^?fT ^r&percnt;ts arrl irq^rg ^'^ qj^?jrRr ^^\'mzR^s;r; sni^ qr^TT^j^^ y;r^T qr^^^nrr ^^fq^r ^r^^^c^riq^ ^rqit^ srawr^j ql^Trr^î

File1-Tilak Trial

''T'^T^ ^^^T^ TrT^'?;^^ RRT^. ST^R^cT TT?^f?IT#iÎ'<^twqT ^,1 ^ ^r^TTP?^ -BTII,

23

^ ^tj^ ^T^ fcTT^ fT^JT ^1^WA WTRT ?:T&percnt;2ncffc5qcTfTT^^ ^VTtR f^lJoSj, ^.

e^TFTr^ sr!^^ ^f^J ^jzMt^ ^^ ^w^j ^^'^ arffrf, |€rwr^ f^^K^rt ^jrm ?r^.^^\^^ c?TO ^ ^^ ^vfT jfrf ?r jrô^n^ spm w^ w.iruîrmm ^^ ^r^ ^'-^rm^^J5[^^r 3T7^ c^ d^ ^RRcTTrT, 3Rrr srf^rs^rHr ^r^ ^^#^fr ^^rM^ ^c^^jt^ff

^j^^qr^ ^ 1^ cTRin^- ^5^(133^1^^ ^ W^Tf^ ^FRT=qTM'iW-^ #^ ^T^, 3RTT #^rq^ ^j^j^.

5T&percnt;c5r Rr:RTw ^^ m^. ^^c^rr 'tttsi^f N^=^t^'Cr^^tcT^sr ^nfj ^ynrrqt §t^ ^[^"r^r^ ?T"^^ w.^-^ ^ î^^Wij^^î ^3^^5q7 ^.?r s^cTfrT.q^T ft^qr^ ^^jr^ rnr^^TR

^R 5f^ &percnt;^ IcTI^ 5T5| ^l qiTSR ^Tit?: ^T^ JT^m^ T&percnt; ^q203TT=srr q cfT^l jfrô^Tp^ ^-

fT^?T &percnt;^tCr ^^ ^T^fR ^tCt. 5t^ ^^^ ^t&percnt;^f^f T ^^ ^^r ^^^ w>^mJJ m ^jii cr tt-^?IT j.mm ^^r ^'jqr^ jt^cTTt ^1r i^r^t^ q;t&percnt;^ ? ^r w-^^j^ ^^ ^jtr ^rfl ^?, ?j^r#^m<=hioi s-rf'Tq^^t^'r ir^RR^rfr ^ttt 3Rn^:RT st^rt ^^^r^^n^ ^rw^rCr it^jr&percnt;

^•-^ ^c5TRT&percnt; ^JR^T^ q^ô^rtrT 3TR5T !J?R^=E5fr fcT^f ^^Rq^F^'l •|JT^Tcr ^Fff ^

File1-Tilak Trial5fiTrc5i=^3Tr^ ^5R^ ^^^^ ^*5ra"R ^JWJ- 'TTT^ 5rr^TCl=^^ ^RR TTTI^3RRt ftpsTRJcffc5

^^t HT^r^ ^^<^Ff ?B3^ ^st Ci^fTF-Rft^^ STR^TIT fs^rtrcfr. sfR^r^sTR^fr ^^^ ^^ sTtTir arr^rf^ srg-'iT ^ ft^v^rrîcfr^ ^7 ^^q^ s-tt^ cr ^^\'^^'^^^d mt( iî wî ^p^trr

^2^=^! ?Rtn ^0^^ ^ ^mT&percnt;^-'Fr^ rRR ^f R; ^^"0^SSRITFT arflT^r TTSl^T JJa-q^cTR^fr fSW^ ¦+r^"-tTTTSI^Rrn ^ JTrJRJRT r1-^5TR^7Î^^T^ =JFF5R^ 5T^ ?R jfiiRSt-

^TtT î^^^^T^Rfr f&percnt;qr 5ir3T^^5iTt-o7 sttjrI^5q^t^=qm'=q st^^r o^rij- ^r^ srf^ ^ ^nrr-^?rT r:^!T^ &percnt;^5ttt&percnt;5tr ^3fc[T ?r^.qn^frr^ ^rfr i&percnt;^^" ^tr{&percnt; ^r ir^rr&percnt;:qT^

^R^t ^^TRq-^^ RJT^3^r ^~-^^^^R ^ter ^rtf.snf=nTisqT5^ tr rstrt ^^pt ^ri&percnt;^

24

^R^T^"^^ l^t=^ ^.T ^^r 3T^r^ iTicJr ^nf , | ^rw?i^^jf^tr cRt ^^ ? ^rw^f&percnt;#Rf û^; 3Tf<-^r<[ ^^w\ ^r sf^ ^^3?!&percnt;, 5^rwT ^^r^ ^nqTSTrr ?3T^r sr^. î-wi

^q^T- 3Tm'i^-5ft=^^ 3TTW R?r?5rs^ ^r^t^r^tr |t^^^rgt =î55T&percnt;rn ^R ^JiL ^k-'Ti^r ^ ^^^^r f&percnt;^ cTr'?;r ?ifS3n^R??ft ^1^3^Tft. fc^r^ ^^tîr #^ ^ €m ^^^

&percnt;t^; TJT î^jfrsr ^R?jRr t&percnt;^

File1-Tilak Trialw'îm-î'-w ^m^'^t^, w^j ?if 'Tr^^rr^r gsjg^rsr^#^ 7^:?Tt f&percnt;^T ^r^r^ ^î m ^°r sn"! w^? '^^t^ jfrs^TT^T siri^ ^^t stt^ 3T[&percnt;, Ct

^R&percnt; ^r. ^^^RI c5^^^ ^FPJIFqT ^t^ 5110^'TTS^l^ ^T^C^R ^wk WRFcl", T^ 3TT-^Rt JTT^f^^^r ^RTWR ^^=^ ^^ 'Tt^ rRR qfJ^TJ^TT^f^W^t ^r^^fr ^RcT ^7^1. R^^T^\^ ^frS^TxiT JTTST ^T^?^RT tr^ ^^T ^T^?T, ^^fr"Tt=^ ^TTrf^tn ^tSR^ fRTi, îlFJT ^r

^^3R^T^|T5Tt=^r m^^ fR 3Tl|rT. R^^R^TF ^5:r&percnt;?I5?'3Ttcr 5rT&percnt;^ ^rô=3Tr l^mRR3[r

w^ ^'4\^ m^^ â? 'tMr^trt ?rw ^r ? ^r ^se^rHt ^ i^?f5rr&percnt;^ itt^ ^\,

Wq^N^ 'TTfcTt ^R 'its^TT^^ 4^ ^tCi ^Rc5=Er^ R^R ^[^cf ^^^ t^TR^ SJc^ 3-Tr|. ^T TTT^-ffl^s 3TT| ^r=^5TTqT^ ^T 3T^r^ sTR c^Tf 5 Sâjfj^^?t4 STIcTt ^<^RT ^R^JT^ Sfifr ^^^r. ^^TT, STfTR^r, ^'TT?r, ^"^> ^R I sTR 3H ^Cl^ft^^T^tcT ^T^R | 3H ?iR ^1&percnt;,

qriT ^^^^T"|r^ '-^r^ î^^' sfq^R ^^r ^rrg^?Tr4r^#=Cr ^^^r ^^^^rr^^^ ^^Rir #^c!rtrT^fmr &percnt;^^T^tr[ =^rCt^ qâ^j^ T&percnt;?fiRTr^ ^[^mi^c ? ^ ^nq-re^ srrlcT ^f=T[ Cr r?it

#7T^^ ^^^ STT^T^ RT^ ^T^S^T: cTrs^TRT3TT0TTOn^?T&percnt; ^ST'^TiTT^R; ^ ^f R&percnt;c^^^TRf TR^

=^tt ^^^ '^R ^^'t sttI. 5Tr&percnt;^^H?r^ î^5R2Tr=lsr^Jir^qr^ fr ^t^rf ^j^^^^t srf^crRtcT

STFTcTT ^^r ^ ^S^t^^^t ^TRrTt ^F ! ^f t5rF5r^}^3Ft=s?TF ^F JTF^f^ &percnt;3^2TRF ^PF^F^r^7

File1-Tilak Trial^^"^WF ^^^t ^t^ ? ^f F 'T''^^ W'^F t?^^ ^f tSTTcRfF^^FRF ^F^F^ IHW RF^^f ^WFS^Ft^F^^ ?F^3R ^^^T STT^ ^^^. TFf^3TFR ^FWFRF ^t^T^r ?T^^^RR^F fF^^^^^F JT^î. RF-&percnt;o5F ^q^^wCF "^r^ ^R^, ^JF55TfCf ^^ ^F^t ^^^^RFIT ^ 5T^. 3T^TcRF 5frgl^r 5fR^'«T^^n^T^F^ IFRF^^^F 3n|. "M ^RfIw'f ^FW =^Fc5^t ^^Rt,^cFF ^F^rft, RF^Rt F&percnt;^, ^^c51^&percnt; 5FR&percnt;;2FF^R&percnt; ^^TFc^R ^^^^F^fFt^F^Ft, RfI^T ^F^F=53TF ^F ^f^ ^"RJF ^h^T ^-^T^-q^JTT^^F '^ RFR^'^q^T^ ^^F^RrTt ^ ^^^0" ^^T^îf^RrTt^FW^^RF ^jf^^J^J^t ^"^ ^^^W^\. \^^^ S^vT &percnt;^ in3^^ q^^FJT RF^r^^F ^^F^"R^-i", TW rfpg ^^?TF ^^^Î^T ^'^T^STiTrT fF^ ^ qT"^ ^^F ^^ cff^F ^^ 3T^ ^^^F JTF^^t^, ^^ ^t ^fI^ i Tr[&percnt;IIF-

25

cf^R^ RJTFT^R^R ^r*-? ^[^"^TT^ ^^T ^R?T =^[T^ 3T^^,^TTWR TTt&percnt;^t=^^ ^1^=^ 5I^f'+I^<^ ^T^R5iT?r ^ ^îfr ^TTfr^rT ^ô^rt ^^jT^RTT ^&percnt; 3Tr|. ^nf^TTT^ ?rTft&percnt;^?:i^RT&percnt; sT^Te^rr^ fi ^tt^t ^fpnf ?to|;cri&percnt;jfte3Tt=^^r^=^ ^pir^w ?nMr+i^Ncii ^ ?r, 3t^ ^^^r^ &percnt;^tttI^. ttî^rr =^r^^55R t^^s^ 5fn^ri^ ft^R &percnt;^^ ? 3TTq^'2fr i^rtt,sttt^'^tt ^"{rtî ^t srrq^r ^^^K^vw^\ ^jq^rR3TTq^3TT ^^ ^^rw q^^'35iT&percnt; ^;ffr?TT^fw^'Tw^tRR ^?: t^^tt ^^rip^^rrft qpTR friiRr

5TT^; 3T^ rft^ RTT^F ?TrIat('d, " This neivspax)erwas printed and imhlished at the ' Kesari '

File1-Tilak TrialPrinting Press, No. 466, Naratjan Peth, Poona, InjBal Gangcodhar Tilah, " )

Since the] commencement of the bomb-affair all theAnglo-Indian news-papers have been incessanty advising Government asto what should be done,if such calamities are to be averted in future. TheEngaUshman of Calcuttaand the Bombay Times and other newspapers haveimputed the whole blameto political agitation. The Statesman newspaper ofCalcutta being controlledby the missionaries was not, so long, much opposedto political agitation.But this paper has now given out its opinion thatsince terrible occurrencesof bomb ( outrages ) spring from the Sivadeslti andboycott agitation, thisagitation should be stopped. The SivadesTd agitationgives rise to bomb-out-rages and the Bengal partition gives rise to theS'iradeshi agitation; then

why not first cancel the Bengal partition itself ?The( rt ) ( The science of logic, ) Tarhci-shastra (a)of Anglo-Indian newspaper(editors")

has, owing to (their) heads being turned, now become

(70 (The science of nion- ^^7.7 . /7\ wu ^ il a

]-eyg, ) Mar/iata-s/iasf7ri, (u)\\hen secret plotsof a very

File1-Tilak Trial( G^ ( The scienc of false- similar kind werediscovered in Ireland, the statesman

hood, ) Mr. Gladstone, instead of making use of theTarhata-

sTiastra, (r) made use of the genuineTarlca-shastra,{fi)

and made efforts to grant " Home Rule.'' ( i. e. )," S'lraraji/a" to that country.

Some people pay attention to the evil effects of avice firmly established in the

body, only when (that) vice begins to inflicttrouble upon the body in the shape

of a terrible abscess; and an effort is then made toremove the vice. The

terrible murders that took place in Irelandspontaneously rivetted England's

attention to the grievances of that country and then*' Home Rule " or Swarajya

for Ireland began to be discussed. Such usefulness,of one sort, of these

murders has been indirectly described by Lord Morleyin one place. Will the

terrible occurrence at Muzzaffarpur rivet LordMorley's attention to the grievance

about tb.e partition of Bengal ?

File1-Tilak TrialThe opinion of the Allahabad Pioneer about thebomb-outrage is that ifGovernment wants completely to prevent theseterrible occurrences, it shouldkeep ready a list of the " suspected leaders " ofbomb ( -throwers ) for eachprovince, district or taluka and notify that ifthere was any bomb-outragewithin such and such limits, ten, twenty ( or )twenty-five persons out of thatlist would be hanged ! It cannot be denied that thisis one way of strikingterror ( into the public mind ) ; but it is a truthestablished by history thatoutrages like those of bombs increase instead ofdiminishing by (the adoption of)

27

such remedies. The Conservative party passed the "Coercion Act, " that is tosay, a law to put down the people, with a view tobring the Irish people to

reason, (tZ) The present Parliament is engaged inthe

W) (Lit., agreement.) business of passing a bill torepeal this very measure.

Ce)— (') (Lit., laws having Were those who passed(t?)repressive laws(c) terrori-

the character of the voracious ^^^ j^.^j^ ^ ^. jg^j^^ ^.^ Ministry

File1-Tilak Trialdemon Bakasur. ) «=> ,., , ..imi.T--i. c

that repeals those very laws wise ? The history oi

(/) (Lit.,iterrorizing.) Ireland bears witness (tothe fact) that repressive {/ )

laws prove useless in the end. It is only whenrulers wish in their minds to wipeout of existence any society, any group of people orany nation, that in thefirst instance repressive laws and afterwards lawsthat ( would ) partially wipethem out of existence are brought into force. Butmankind has never benefittedthrough such national assassination. If, owing tothe bomb-outrage, thenation's assassination is begun in India, then wecan plainly say that itsconsequence would never prove beneficial to theAnglo-Indians. As the Anglo-Indians have not sufficient strength in their wriststo accomplish this work ofnational assassination, it is certainly desirablethat they should not listen to theadvice of those like the Pioneer who are hostile totheir interests. It is possible(for England) to make Ireland remain only in name,by coaxing it, swallowing

it, putting it into the stomach and digesting it.(/?) ( It, a one imc. ) England may possiblyC^-) beable to accomplish the

national assassination of Ireland but it is notpossible to do (this)— in the caseof India. Another statement of the Pioneer is thatthere does not exist at pre-

File1-Tilak Trialsent any cause sufficient to produce so muchexcitement among the people aswould manifest itself in the shape of bomb (outrages ). The Bengal partition,the agitation consequent on such partition, theriots, zuliim and prosecutionsresulting from this agitation— are not all thesefacts indicative of the excitedcondition of the people? At one time such oppressiongave rise to smallinsurrections in England; and it was only when thepeople of that countryrose in rebellion, and, after dethroning the King,introduced constitutional rulethat no occasion was left for them to resort toviolent means for effecting admi-nistrative reforms. To disregard facts that increasethe exasperation of thepeople, and then to ask the question as to why theBengalis should have goneoff their heads so much, this high-handed chicanerybecomes only a newspaperlike the Pioneer enjoying the protection andpatronage of Government.

[ H. 1. .M:s High Court^ Bomhcui^ A truetranslation.

Translator's Office, 7th Julij 1908. ] N. L. MANKAR,

Third Translator.

28

Ex. E.

File1-Tilak Trial

[ The following is the original Maratld text of theeditorial notes of whichE.r. E. is a translation. ]

ant. ^^^T^TT^ ' ^jTcj^TT^r ' ^ 5^&percnt; ' 3t|5^ '^FR q^rt^'r m ^q tt^^ =^^-

S'I=^T 3TT«fr ?TR55r 3Tf|. ^^5^=f^=t ^S^TT^ T^ffRT^=5n=^f ^j^ 3T^^ ^?T^3T[ i^^^^n?RT =^55^^r^ 'W^^ f&percnt;^ JT5^. TW m q^RSTFrTt ^TTT^ 3?^ JTcT ^tCr: &percnt;^ 3n|

^^^ ^îm ^rT TT^^T^ ITT^ 3T[f . STRICT ^T^TR5nRR&percnt; JH ^3 ^t ^^T?^^

5n^" î ^j^ m^ ^sr shrrr^^qr ôsm^m ^:^]^ W'^ ^t^^^r ?

'^^rr^ f^ TRT Hituiii^ ^r^t^ ^t^RT^ tt^^ 3rr^ sni.5tr^=^^ ^ym^r ^f^Rf

I

29

^w^ ^^J^, TT^T^r ^^f f&percnt;qr Trj^\ ^rs&percnt;5f t ^r^^nR^T?:^^^ ^î^ ^mm ^?r^r^

JHcoJ-li-r.^! ST^qfs^ TJ^T'^^ ^T fll^^TRtcf STUi^r

File1-Tilak TrialW.V^\^ 5TT^r, cTT c^TF^f qRq-RT sfT^Tffl--W^T &percnt;5^^ f|^^^ imR ^Jit, 3W 3n3^Cr ^T^^Ft^^^f. f ^TS5r'i \ hH\51^ f&percnt;^n'/i'ei in columns 4 and 5 of iiagc 4midrolumn 1 of page 5 of tlie i sue of the ^' KcsarT^neiuspapcr dated 19th May1008, and having afoot-note, ai translated, ' Thisnewspiaper was 2^rinted andpublished at the '¦'' Kesari '"* printing Press, No,486, Narayan Peth, Poonahif Bal Gangadhar Tilah. )

A double hint.

There is certainly no doubt that the heads of thoseyoung gentlemen whomanufactured bombs or brought them into use atCalcutta were turned. Butthe disease of turnheadedness is so contagious that,though the heads of theyoung persons of Calcutta ( may ) have b6c©me coolin consequence of theirhaving vomited the jDoison in their heads, the headsof some other gentlemenhave already been turned or have now begun to beturned by the poisonvomited by them. These people are of two sorts. Thefirst ( sort consists of )

Anglo-Indian gentlemen or iournalihts, and the other

(a) (.c) (Literally, oue (of) some cowardly and (.r)self -conceited (.t) men

File1-Tilak Trial

vvho has gained fame and celeb- amongst US, The onlydifference is that the wiliness

nty: used with reproach ct a per- ° ''

son who sits clown satisfied with of theAnglo-Indian journalists has helped them in

his present acquisition and stri- ^he turning oftheir heads ; while cowardice has

vea for glory no further; or used ^

with irony generally.) inspired those amongst uswhose heads are in a

disordered condition. The only fact that some boysof Calcutta prepared bombs and tried to blow off aEuropean Magistrate, andthat two innocent white women fell victims in that {attempt ), has sufficed to dis-tract some cowards amongst us, who call themselvesalone lovers of peace. It isnot the case that these people may not have read innewspapers the news of suchterrible things always occurring in Russia. Buttheir mind is persuaded not onlythat it was most dreadful that such a thing snouldhave happened in India,and that, too, against white officers, but also thatit ( has ) caused immenseloss to India; and, in order to show their burning (sentiments of ) loyalty,these gentlemen are now most vigorously forwardingto Government sugges-tions or resolutions of the following sort: — " Weprotest most strongly against

File1-Tilak Trialsuch a thing ; bomb-throwers are, in no way,connected with us ; and we haveno concern with their shocking deeds; nay.Government should at once stop thewritings or speeches which are the cause of theseshocking deeds, we have noobjection to it; nay, such is also our desire ! ''This, in our opinion, is the heightnot only of cowardice but also of folly. And thoughGovernment officers maybe aware of this fact, they indirectly consent to itin as much as it is only to theiradvantage to obtain such an admission at present.We, too, consider it reprehen-sible that any one, for any reason, should take thelife of another by bombs orby (any) other means. Not only has it no sanction ofthe code of morality, butalso no one else, just like ourselves, considersthat if some white officers were

I

31

murdersd in this manner, we would thereby at onceobtain f^wamjud. We havealready stated in our last issue that such is notthe belief even of the youngpersons themselves who threw the bombs, /in short,no one will fail to disapproveof taking the life of any one belonging to theofficial class by means of a bomb;and if any one were to express his disapproval to

File1-Tilak Trialthat extent, there is also nothingimproper in it. But the admission that thesehorrible deeds are caused by thewritings or lectures of some political agitators,which some people from amongstus, while expressing such disapproval, have nowbegun to make, is wrong andsuicidal in the extreme ; (and) it is our duty totell this not only to these (persons)but also to the rulers themselves. Anglo-Indianpeople or journalists are, at thistime, absolutely in need of such an admission fromus. Though it may be a factthat the people's heads are turned by the vexation(caused) by the unrestrainedand irresponsible official class in India, it isdesirable for the Anglo-Indians todistort it, for their own interest; and therefore,they have spread a false reportthat it is not owing to the bad acts of whiteofficers but owning to the writingsand speeches of those who without any reason makesevere comments on the saidofficers, that the exasperation of the people hasreached the stage of bomb-throwing. This allegation of the Anglo-Indianjournlists is utterly false..But, under the present circumstances, they have noalternative but to say so.If they admit that the system of administration inIndia is bad, they would beutterly ruined. They will always say this (and this)only, that the politicalagitation against white officers, which exists inIndia is carried on by a few-mischievous people for a selfish purpose; and thatit is not owing to the sin ofwhite officers at all that the stage of

File1-Tilak Trialbomb-throwing has bsen reached; butthat this is solely ( and wholly ) the result of thevery agitation of the mischie-vous people aforesaid. Nay, they consider thebomb-affair to be a very goodopportunity that has easily offered itself to theAnglo-Indian journalists orofficers for suppressing the political agitation nowcarried on in India. Andsome shrewd people among them have already beguneven to make use of thesaid opportunity in this manner. The only thing tobe rc-gretted is that some(ft) Literally, leaping. cowardly and selfish peopleamong us, by volunta-

rily rushing (a) into this their net have set aboutensnaring their countrymen ! The (present) junctureis, indeed, very difficult ortrying, but it is for this very reason that we saythat our people should exerciseparticular vigilance at such a time. We have nothingto say about those whowish to always pass their time in slavery under theirresponsible and uncon-trolled sway of the white officers in India. But allthose, who, finding the presentsystem of administration in India to be intolerable,think that the said systemof administration should be reformed some time orother, should take care thatthey do not, while expressing their disapproval ofthe fact that some innocentpersons lost their lives by means of bombs, give toGovernment, either knowinglyor through cowardice, any absurd admission from them( an admission which, ifgiven, would be ) just the thing desired ( by

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment and obtained by them )without any effort (on their part). Expresa (your)disapproval of, or protestagainst, murder once, or if you like, ten times ; noone is against it. But, inthe interests of the country, we only beg of thesepeople that they should not,of their own accord, convey the utterly falseinformation to Government

32

officials that such acts of turn-headedness are theresult of the atrong writingsor speeches of political agitators. The evidencerequired for proving the loss•which India is sustaining from the political,industrial, moral and materialpoints of view, owing to the entire administrationof India being carried onsolely under the sole guidance of the white officialclass only ( and ) inutter disregard of public opinion, is so very strongthat none but the friendsof the said official class will have any doubt ofthe iniquitous character ofthe present administrative syetem. That such anadministrative system shouldcome to bo disliked by the people is the effect ofWestern education itself;aud seeing that, in spite' of many years' exertions,the said system of admi-nistration is not reformed and that real rights ofSirarajya are not yetgranted to the deople owing to the obstinacy of therulers, the political leaders

File1-Tilak Trialin the country cannot fail to have violent angerproduced in their minds. Itis true that the said leaders will always be able tokeep this anger within lawfullimits; but to think that not even a single personshould arise in the country,whose rage would overstep the lawful limit is, as itwere, to proclaim to theworld that one does not know human nature. Ofcourse, we think that it is anextremely mean act to cannect ths turn-headedness ofbomb-throwex-s v.'ith thewriting or speeches of the peoples' leaders who giveexpression to the unrestor discontent which has arisen in the minds of thepeople on account of theuncontrolled system of administration. It is only inaccordance with the selfishaim of the Anglo-Indian journalists that they spreadsuch false report: there isno wonder in it. The only thing which is reallyregrettable or Surprising, is thatwe are decived by it. 'It is a matter well-known inhistory and assented toby the politicians everyw^here that if theadministrative system in any countryfoe bad, discontent arises among the subjects ofthat country, that the leadersof the people set about removing the defects in theadministrative system, andthat, having roused public opinion for that purpose,they promote the cause oftheir country on tha strength of the said publicopinion. If, however, owingto the movement originating io such a cause, anyturn-headed person in thecountry — and in ©very country turn-headed personsare sure to be (found) — had

File1-Tilak TrialMs head turned by violent anger and if he becameengaged in a dreadful deed,it woald never be proper, as stated above, to laythe blame of it upon the poli-tical agitator. If the present attempt of theAnglo-Indian journalists to establisha far-fetched connection had been merely foolish, wewould not have felt sorryfor it ; but we cannot help saying that it is mean,since it arises not fromignorance but from selfishness. The person, who saysthat all political agitationshould be stopped because one gentlemen had, throughrage, caused the ex-. ^ plosion of a bomb, will be considered asunreasonable

()( una y proves ). ^^ foolish as he, who argues(Jj) that female edu-

-cation should be entirely stopped because under thePeishwa's regime Anandi-foai had changed ( the letter ) '^ (dha) to m (ma),would be considered foolish.There is no such thing ( to be found ) of whichthere is not the least likelihoodof being carried to an extreme at any time. Iftomorrow Government attempt-ed to stop all ( practice of ) surgery in medicinebecause some person had diedin consequence of his boil having been opened by adoctor, would any one allowit in any country :- Just as the English themselveshave not given up sea-

33

File1-Tilak Trial

voyage because of some person ( occasionally )meeting with death by the sink-ing of a ship so also is the case of politicalagitation. As declared by Dada-bhai Naoroji at the National Congress held atCalcutta, whatever be the dis-appointment in the work of effecting politicalreform,

^f)-: ••' •- • '.\m}^ true leaders of the peoplenever lose (c) their composure

iUierally, rnn ofE wildly). ^^^ through anger orrage; but how is it possible that

this quality of the leaders should be possessed byevery man in the country ?In particular, when several attempts at improvingthe political condition haveproved fruitless owing to the obstinacy orstubbornness of the rulers, is it in anydegree unnatural if one or two persons in thecountry had their heads turnedby rage and proceeded to commit (some) excess ? Suchspirits exist and arefound in all countries (and ) in all places. Why,then, should there be such aclamour if such a thing takes place in India alone ?And what, forsooth, is thereason of scattering calumnies against politicalagitators on that account ? Wedo not understand this. It is true that this is thefirst time that this method ofRussian excesses had come into India, but inasmuchas the history of politicalrevolutions in Russia, Germany, France, Ireland andother places is daily coming

File1-Tilak Trialbefore our eyes, how is it possible that not evenone or two persons in thiscountry should not have a mind to imitate it ? Inshort, history bears open witnessto the fact that in any country where anirresponsible and unrestrained officialclass— be it native or alien, — exercises authorityover the subjects without anycontrol, the subjects of that country are sure to bealways discontented ; and thatif the prayer or demand of the said subjects beoverbearingly rejected manytimes, one or two of them at least are sure tobecome heedless and feel inclinedoccasionally at any rate to commit excesses. We needhardly say that the occ-urrences in India are not a deviation from thiscourse of history. If Govern-ment were to put a wrong construction upon them justas the Anglo-Indianjournalists do, then it would be not only ourmisfortune but also that of ourrulers ! Just as if a son committed some excessowing to his having bean keptunmarried for many years, it is the duty of wiseparents to take a warning fromthe said excess and get the son married as soon aspossible, even so it is the dutyof a wise and statesman like Government to realisethat political discontent hasreached the stage of some officer being murdered bymeans of a bomb and to soonremove the primary causes that might (be found to)exist of the said political dis-content.^ We do not at all say that the personcommitting the excess should not bepunished or that his excess should not berepudiated. AVhether the matter be

File1-Tilak Trialsocial or political, an excess is only an excess ;and whatever be the primarycause making (men) to feel inclined to commit thesaid excess, the said excessmust certainly be punished with the sentenceprescribed by law. But to bear inmind that such excesses are unavoidable in somecases and to take a properlesson from them is itself a mark of truestatesmanship and we hope that ourGovernment will consider the dreadful bomb affair ofCalcutta only from such apoint of view. No leader whatever, who is engaged inpolitical agitation, needbe told afresh that sivarajya cannot be secured bymeans of a bomb. The bomb-affair of Calcutta is a disquieting but acutesymptom showing how intolerablethe defects in the existing political system arebecoming or have become tothe people; and as a physician, in case a feverpatient begins to talk incoherentlythrough delirium, without getting frightened by thatsymptom, takes a warningo

3i

from it and coolly prescribes a more efficaciousmedicine for the disease, so theIndian Government should act quietly on the presentoccasion. It is of no use atall to get frightened by the selfish wrath orreasoning of the Anglo-Indian journ-alists. The political agitation among the subjectsis never groundless. The said

File1-Tilak Triala<»itation is, indeed, produced generally inconsequence of the defects that might(be found to) exist in the administration of thecountry; and we need not tell ourGovernment that to stop (all ) political agitationin the country by means of anoppressive law, because somebody has, in a paroxysmof rage, committed themurder of some official is to produce gi^eaterirritation among the people. Just asan engineer is required to take a hint when thesteam in the steam-boiler escapesfor the first time in [disregard of the weight ofthe safty- valve and is calledupon to take measures for lessening the force of thesteam thereafter, similarlyit behoves our Government, without bringing intotheir head the wicked thoughtof taking revenge, to make provision in future forreforming their administ-ration in order that the violent anger of thesubjects might not reach thestage of throwing bombs. It is not the case thatanyone does not want( the reign of ) peace and law: but to strike, underthe pretext of( maintaining ) tranquillity^ at the root of theagitation that has sprung upamong the people in consequence of the real defectsin the administration,while denouncing such terrible deeds asbomb-outrages, is to adopt the pathof taking revenge, not of wisdom or statesmanship.It is the experience ofhistory that in consequence of such a mistake, evenconstitutional agitationeventually acquires the form of a revolution: ifthis experieace or this sugges-

File1-Tilak Trialtion of taking a warning which can be learnt fromthis experience is notacceptable to our Government, we are helpless. Weare humbly telling Govern-ment only that which appears true to ns: and it isour belief that in it alonelies our good and the good of our rulers. To tellGovernment that the writingsand speeches of the political agitators in thecountry were the cause which ledto the perpetration of the atrocious crime of murderby means of the bomb islike deliberately driving Government into a ditch.There is no wonder if thosewhite gentlemen who wish to espouse the cause of thewhite official class andwho wish that their oppressive sway should continueuninterrupted in thiscountry, give such advice to Government. But thatour people should beready, while denouncing the bomb ( outrage ), togive such advice under ( theinfluence of) the one-sided or delusiveencouragement of Anglo-Indian journal-ists or that Government should commit theunstatesmanlike (act) of taking suchsuggestions into consideration, — neither of thesetwo things, is, in our opinion,(a sign of) calmness (or) statesmanship or conduciveto the welfare of the country.The minds of those who make these suggestions are,in one case, stricken withcowardice and with craftiness in the other case.Therefore, both and especiallyGovernment, should consider this thing by keepingtheir heads cool : such is

our request to them. There is an old adage (which

File1-Tilak Trial

1*^) 5'^) (^^" *®^* says) ' One{d) should avoid anexcsss in all cases.'(c?)

ifi in Sanskrit. ) ^^^ ^^^^ longer do Governmentmean to wait for

the anger produced in the minds of the people by thedefective system of adminis-tration, reaching an extreme degree ? It is not atall desirable for a civilisedand wise Government to sorely try the patience ofthe subjects. Tranquillity

35

must of course be maintained and do maintain it ;but, under the pretext of(maintaining) tranquillity, do not spread thorns onthe paths by which subjects"(usually) acquire (their) natural rights, on theexcuse of the suggestions madeby flatterers who are adverse to the weal ( ofGovernment ). This kind ofadministrative policy has not hithereto provedbeneficial to any one, and, ifthe experience of history be true, will not prove soin future also- this iscertain. We say once more that hard times are comingday by day. If, atsuch a time, both Government and the subjects do notkeep their heads cooland do not take a proper lesson from undesirable butinevitable incidents,they should both bear in mind that in consequence ofit permanent harm will

File1-Tilak Trialbe inflicted on the country. The present difficultycan be ( temporarily ) wardedoff by ( spreading ) a false report ; but it cannotbe a permanent solution.For that, finding out the truth and regulating one'sconduct in future inaccordance with it is the sole ( and ) singleremedy; and it is our prayer toGod that Government may be inspired with the;^thought of enforcing thatremedy alone.

l^H. I. xlf.'.s- Hif/h Court, Bomhay, A traetranslation.

Translators Offi,ce, 0th Juhj 1908.J N. L. MANKAR,

Third Translator

36

Ex. F.

[ The'following is the original Marathi te.rt of thearticle of which Ex. F. isa translation, ]

?gC( f^?T !

(&percnt;'B^, ^RM {&percnt;^ {&percnt;o<^).

File1-Tilak Trial

?TW ^f^^TT^t STNeÎT ^T^RT^ ^'t^ ^Tll^3TT&percnt;eqT5^ ^\^ iHj ^tl '4^ mm, cRt ^^T

^rîT^ c3Tt=^T ^f^^T^TWR ^m 51^^ ^^l 3tt| sttft5nTp^?frc5 ^Kf ^T sj^^îficf c^n^^^fT ^Tcr ^^^mijint w^ni w^ stt|.^^^s^x^rtcfr^ ^7 ^m^t ^^r 'ft^ cptr^^^^ TT^ 5îf^r2R ^r^T^RT ^^1? ^î^n^T w^^&percnt;^t, sttft ^rt ^^ i^^^r^l ^m^^1&percnt;^ ^qê^rr tt^t=^ 'tis srm^îdl^ ît^^'^\^=^ ^cIcttw?? ôTf^ ^f^tt •-t--3ir3" i^-

^stKt dK^c* ;3f^ ^JTTRTT^ ^^ ITTW 3TT1.^&percnt;3it?T ^f^ft t^^ 3T^2IT STê^TT ^ff^^

^1 'TIS sTTfUT cfrCr 311^1 3Tfq^r^t=s3TT R^^ ^r^r^T,^rm ^q^îrHt ^tr? ^r^7, i^ri^^^, cR f|^^r?T=^ t^r'^Tt 5^^5t ?n^, ar^ 2n=^3?T trr^^ srfl; ^ttft sTiwt ^c5^

^RRST s^Tff ^^3TT^< HHI'îK'ir ^J¥5B 2f^û|hi|i-t.J^| ^^j^^' 3TTPT ÎN'J||4^<^ TT^^ m^^ ^fRts^T^ ^^; cÎT^^ ^mm ^ ^^. TW 3T^Ryf

3TRrir JTFm ^. ft^STR^ ^ TT^^T^FRVTR ^ril^'Hdl^^Îc+Nd'Cl 'RT ^ ^T?^ &percnt;^^ 'TF^r3Tf^R"N4n^M TT^^jfr cT^R =^R5?r 3T-yH^lii<2 ^r^R^,sfratFR, ^R^ ^STTFT^TRTtRJ I^m ft^-IR^ ^ ^'+.^l'i ^ 3T1^ d" T&percnt;^^fiV^^ <^< Rr Uf^TR ^rtt. fT ^RR^R?:5^F?Tt^ cpT3R^W^^ÎT 3TR ^f?ff S^ ^ ?^r;

"M ^RRTT ^dPT ^BR^fk w^&percnt; 3Tr&percnt;^T?rJr^:^, 3RrT ^ct tr^ 315^ f^^ 3t^ w^

File1-Tilak Trial^"^ ^3R^^TRR7 3TRWT^ 3fTo5?^ ^t, 3T^ ^FTRTôSfîRT^FR^' STIf. 3TSTR 3THÎ^d<^' 3TTfit^ ^fe ^rs^ ^^^; q^ ctt 3T|tT?n=^r ^^^^^^wn?^ ^rtc^ts^ ^"r

^ MrT^ ^fmr 5^c5 RKTî^ tt^ ^f ^'41^ ^rTiqi^rsrfsnto ^3^f^^ w^ ^ iv^J^^fCf ^m ^ft ^', r^^ ÔT 1&percnt;^ f'^f^psjT^r^r^RigT ^^r^ ?nfr. tt?î^ ^^t^rr

5Rcfr fp^ ?if 1^^ îq^t^r ^3TT5RT^ ^5s:3iR ^1^5 f^^ffj^ ?t^^ kt^^ ^^.ôij^^î33fT=£3?F ^4r ]&percnt;rVFCr rh^ irr^t ^Cf si^?cr\ gô ^'^fCt tidiMM f&percnt;^F ctwr^'f&percnt;^-t^;f

^FFtT ^^; qw g^^^FT^F STTT^ ^ 3"Jr ^t?fFcif 5F^^^'W^ siifF ^^ îRTWF?: ? 1&percnt;&percnt;^-?S^R ^^FF^SF UÎ^T RqF&percnt; g'-m^^nqn^^t&percnt;^ ^^^5 5I3FFJT Î^^'+-c:^'f=S3?F f?F5^ fefF^?;F-3T^ I^^qj^ ITF^ 3T^T?TFrT, rT^ft ^trfif^ ^r^F^l^^^FF ^^?TF^ ^RF^F^ ^F^ F^:^ ^^^<^7^''-TF Û 3MF=eirf^ o^rqqHf:^^ 3?^! ^RtfF^ :3^^^F^ ^ '^&percnt;.fl^'^FF^FR ^F^^cfF 5r^F^ 5TF |F&percnt;IF^=S^ ^?W^#f JF ^FFft, t ^TF^Cf Î^HM' rRR ^f&percnt;^ ^R^RR 3T5TT H?^r R=^^ ^P^ '^yrîf^cpjrjw.^^J^ tjj ij^fl^ Tjtt ^R W^T

|»rRT Tsfii ^^Tf^T^R 2fr fj^^rr 'f-<'jii-iit=?n' jrjtpt in^^r ^nf ?f. ^["^t ^r^TRr ^mf^

40

T&percnt;tr'TcT: ^5W^ m^^]^ 3TrT^ ^ ^rtcT ssjjt ^

File1-Tilak Trial'ft^^r f^^R ^^r, st^t ^t^ arrw]&percnt;^*cfr 3TTt. ' 3Tf^ ^^^r ^m^ ' ^r^ tt^ 1^7^^ ^nt. ^*r^ ^R^r^nsf^^ ^jct^t

^l^e-HI #fir^2TT JT^Tcfte uhlished at the"Kesari" printing press, No. 486, Narayen Peth,Poona, hy Bal GangadharTilah \ )

The real meaning of the bomb.

Great commotion was caused not only in India butalso in England by thesecret bomb society discovered iu Calcutta and bythe bomb which exploded atMazzaffarpur. At this juncture two kinds of newswere simultaneously flashedto England ! One (was) that the bomb had taken birthamongst the Bengalisand the other (was) that ten or twenty thousandAfghan troops having attackedthe fort of Landi Kotal, an indication began toappear that- war would breakout with the Amir. Not only was there no specialcommotion in the publicopinion of England owing to the news of the fightingon the frontier, but eventhe news of the war with the Amir paled before thenews of the bomb. Forsome days the bomb in India had become the solesubject of talk and writingin England. This news produced an extraordinaryeffect upon the people whoare always eager to hear sensatioaal news, upon thewriters in newspapers andupon Members of Parliament; nay, it bewildered eventhe wealthy bankers ofLondon, who carry on financial operations, holding

File1-Tilak Trialin their hands the strings ofthe wealth of the whole of the continent of Europe;and they refused to^ lockup (their) capital in India on merely the old terms! The East India RailwayCompany was trying (about) this time to raise apretty large loan in the City ofLondon; but the bomb having thrown a littlediscredit in England on theIndian administration and on the huge concernsdependent upon that adminis-tration, the money-lenders and the banks in Londondid not agree to subscribeto the loan without demanding a considerable premiumabove the stipulatedinterest. So much commotion did not take place inEngland even at the tim®when Mr. Rand was murdered on the Jubilee day in theyear 1897. The mindsof the people of England were not so much attractedcowards India even whenLala Lajpatrai was deported and Government declaredthat an attempt wasmade to tamper with (the loyalty of ) the SikhRegiments ; even the Tinnevellyriots did not create so much stir in the publicopinion of England. The publicopinion in England is distinctly seen to be inclinedtowards the view that if anyextraordinary event has occurred in India since theyear 1857, it is the birthof the bomb.

To understand the real meaninor of the bomb, all thefollowing three

things (a) should be calmly considered, (namely),(«) Lit., oonditioDB. ^^^^ ^.g ^^^^ ^^^gg ^^^^^^ j^^

File1-Tilak Trial^^ ^j^g ^.j,^jj of the bomb

party in India, how will this party fare in India,and what effect will this party

i2

produce on the administration and the people ? Allthoughtful people seemnow to have formed one opinion as to the cause thatgave birth to the bombparty. This bomb party has come into existence inconsequence of the oppres-sion practised by the official class, the harassmentintiicted by them and theirobstinacy in treating public opinion withrecklessness. The bomb explodedowing to the official class having tried thepatience of the Bengalis to such adegree that the heads of the Bengali youths becameturned. The responsibility-of|this calamity must, therefore, be thrown not onpolitical agitation, writingsor speeches, but on the thoughtlessness and theobstinacy of the officialclass. In the last two issues we had published it asour opinion that doingaway with the rights of the subject ( and ) passingnew oppressive lawswas no remedy against the bombs, and that the bombswould cease onlywith the grant of important rights to the subjectsand by increasing theirprosperity. It is a matter for satisfaction that inEngland, too, "opinions quitesimilar to those published in the Kesari have been

File1-Tilak Trialpublicly expressed byeven high Government pensioners like Sir HenryCotton ( and ) Sir WilliamWeddsrburn. Government have taken to disregardingthe advice of goodpeople by placing reliance upon the false reports ofthe wicke 1 detctive Policewho are adverse to the weal of Government; and owingto this, the obstinacyof Government to view the people with a malignanteye and to exercisa a harshsway over them does not lessen. It is the opinion ofSir William Wedderburnthat this obstinacy gives birth to the bomb. SirHenry Cotton says that Bengaliyouths, having been subjected to the punishment offlogging, became naturallyexasperated in consequence of the aflliction ofdisgrace and joined the bombparty. The ( sentence of ) Hogging ( iaflicted ) bythe Magistrate drove theyouths towards the bomb party; was this the fault ofthe youths or that o£the whip in the hands of the official class ? ( Theofficials ) flog the backs ofthe youths over and over again and drive them to themouth of a ditch; and( then ) if any one of them, despairing that ( his )suffering does not. cease nomatter what he does, thinks in a paroxysm ofdiscomposure why he alone shouldfall into the ditch, and jumps into the ditch aftercatching bold of the leg ofthe person flogging him, who is ( to be held)responsible for this mishap?Why do you, in the lirat place, drive the youths tothe ditch of despair byrepeatedly flogging their backs? It is human nature

File1-Tilak Trialthat one should try todrag down the precipice along with oneself the manwho has flogged him to theditch of despair, sorrov?^ and e.\asperation. Atsuch a time, will it be reason-able to say, * You should perish alone, falling down( the edge of )the clifi!, why do you drag me also' ? If a man bedrowning in water andsome one approaches him with the good desire to savehim, even thenthe drowing man does not fail to catch him by theneck, A man be-wildered by difficulties becomes ready to do harmeven to ( his ) benefactor.Then, if one, while drowning in water, gets withinreach of the person who hag

,,, T •* J *. •., • thrown him into a sea (h) oftrouble, where shall w^e

(fc) Lit, deep pare m a nveri

find among worldly persons (a man of) such gener.ous and cool temperament that he will not drag theother ( person ) along with

i3

himself towards the path of death ? The Bengalispersistently agitated against

the partition of Bengal in a constitutional (c)(r) Lit. proper, mannar; but they did not getredress. Well, it

File1-Tilak Trialid) Lit, savin-. did not matter if there was noredress. Thinking

(d) that they would improve their conditionby resorting to .'^/vadeshi, boycott, nationaleducation and other approved methods©f self-reliance, they betook themselves to the pathof national regeneration;thereupon some of the authorities caused their (own)heads to be turned by

this patriotism of Bengal, and letting loose some(.) A sharper, knave. Musalman gundas (c) upon theBengalis, caused

damage to their property and to the honour of theirwomen. This lesson oftaking indirect revenge for going against theinclination of the official class^vas set by some turn-headed officials to theBengali youths. As you sow, soyou reap. The officials become turn-headed ; theBengali youths also becameturn-headed. On the occasion of the Comilla andother riots, some of theauthorities resorted to a path of violence partakingof the nature ( of gratifi-cation ) of private grudge, viz., thrashing theBengalis indirectly; by secretlytaking advantage of private or religious feuds andoverawing them ^^y meansof terrorizing ; ( and ) the Bengali youths alsoadopted that very path of violence.The action of both is of the same nature and bothare equally guilty. Calm andthoughtful philosophers will weigh both in the samescale and put the same value

File1-Tilak Trialupon both. When (/)Agya Vetal (/) moves(/)...(/) (A demon. In abroad, bombs are bound toexplode in rear andhis name there is a mantjn at . ... ^^j^j j^ ^^^Settled COUrse of nature,the recitation ot which fire is *" ^^"" ' , , .,. ,,. .i „ ^„„o

luuJied in tlie person or pro- At such a time, thedeities, regulating the crea-prty of the juau to le in- ^.^^^^ ^^ ^^^j. p^.^y ^q^hs god Brahma for put-

^"'^^'^' ting a stop to bombs, but they pray to Him

( as follows ) :— " Please stop the wanderings ofAgya Vetal and make himsit calmly with the four boundaries of the templeassigned to, and prescr-ibed for, the demon". The bomb is the reverberationof the terrific roarof Vetal when he leaves his place and wandersaccording to (his) whim.The Creator of the world has not so constructed theearth that the echoof shrill and terrible shouting should be sweet tothe ear. Like sound,like echo; the only difference being that the wavesof the echo continueto become more and more minute and disappear. Theecho of a sweet soundis called anato^j(g)and as these alaps become moreand more minute andindistinct, the minds of the hearers become the more

I>] [Humming of a tuno.] ^^^^^^^ . ^^t when an echois heard that a networkof minute and secret societies has been spread in

File1-Tilak Trialthe surrounding hills andcaves owing to ( the inauguration of ) a terribeeand fearful policy, then allpersons become anxious to see when the harsh,asinine voice of the official classwill stop.

It is not that the Parliament and even the Liberalparty does not containturn-headed men who support the views of thePioneer, the Englishman, andthe Bombay Times. The Honourable Mr. Rees is aMember of Parliamentbelonging to the Liberal party, and his view aboutthe bomb-affair is that thebombs have come into existence owing to the officialclass not having been

44

able to strike suflBcient terror ( into the minds ofthe people ) by repressing thenatives and exercising stringent sway ( over them )! The people should have beenwell ground down ; how would they, then, haveventured to make bombs ? Formaking bombs, some knowledge, the power of a littlemoney and some assist-ance of men are required. Why has the official classgiven even such facilitiesto the people as would leave them sufficientknowledge ( and ) sufficient amountof wealth to prepare bombs and as would produce evenone or two irritable men( among them ) ? It seems to be the opinion of ( theHonourable ) Mr. Rees

File1-Tilak Trialthat the people have not been so sternly oppressedas they should have been.If any man is to be slapped in the face, then theslap that is to be givenshould be so severe that no strength either to cryor even to murmur should beleft to him. The blow was mildly given and,therefore, the loud crying ( in theshape ) of the bomb is heard. Mr. Rees, therefore,advises Goverument — " Ifrepression is to be practised, then press downforcibly without love or mercy, crushdown the heads of all in one and the same fashion,let a level plain be made allround, and then the reverberation of your tyrannicalacts will be heard nowhere.If Government leave all bounds, as suggested by theHonourable Mr. Rees, thenthe consequence thereof shall never be beneficial toGovernment and to India.Even bombs can be prepared with a little knowledge,at a small cost and withsmall effort, still there is not much danger fromthem at present to the officialclass. The bomb is not as dreadful in India as it isin Europe; the reason of this isstated by the Bombay Advocate to be that even thoughsome turn-headed people(ready to) prepare bombs are found, still, therebeing the Police and other peopleanxious to give information about such turn-headedpersons to the authorities,secret bomb societies cannot fail to be immediatelybrought to light in Indialike the one of Calcutta. A few turn-headed personshave been producedby the policy of repression at present in force. If,as the Honourable Mr. Rees

File1-Tilak Trial

advises, (h) all the authorities in all places begin

(h) (Lit., says ) to intimidate one and all in oneand the same

(i)-(f) (Lit. beads woven on fashion, and (if allpeople) (i) becoming of the same

the.same string.) sort are converted (i) equallyinto turn-headed

persons throughout their lives, then the numberof the backbiting gentry will (fast) dwindle down;and who can gay thatturn-headed men will not begin to appear evenamongst the Police ? Thespread of English education in India, the pride ofnationality which is beingborn amongst the people and the sun of Japan's risewhich is mounting to themeridian, if all these facts be taken intoconsideration, (it appears that) if. J.. . Government act upon Mr. Rees' advice, (j)they will not

(3) ( 1 -I saying.) possibly be benefited thereby tothe smallest degree.

It is a mistaken idea in itself that the peopleprepare bombs owing to theirhaving been puffed up. He who tells Government atthis juncture that theintoxication of the people culminates in bombs,should be regarded by Govern,ment as their enemy. Government allowed the nativesand some of the

File1-Tilak TrialMembers of Parliament to write without restraint,(and) to speak withoutrestraint and allowed unrestricted agitation to goon; (and) thereby the mindsof the people, too, lost all restraint and some ofthe youths became turn-headed:this argument itself is indicative of the aberrationof the intellect. (Suppose) ason comes of age, (and) the father refuse to get himmarried at his (proper) stage

^5

of life and if the strength (sufficient) towithstani the influence of that stageof life is not found in him, then who has exceededthe due limit ? The fatheror the son ? By whom have the bounds of the stage oflife been transgressed ? Bythe father or the son ? A son in the form of anation was born in India in conse-quence of English education, (and) in the ordinarycourse of nature he came ofage in accordance with the tendency of the timeswhich brought about the riseof Eastern nations like Japan, etc.; now it isproper in view of his stage of lifeto associate him only witn institutions (carryingwith them) the rights of sivarajya.As Government are neglecting to take care of ( ^.e., to maintain ) this congruity( befitting ) the stage of life ( of the nation ),the conduct of some of the youthshas transgressed ( due ) bounds. Before thisunrestrained conduct becomes therule of every day life. Government should, by

File1-Tilak Trialrecognizing ( the meaning of )the (present) stage of life, take measures first ofall to bring turn-headed per-sons to their senses by associating the youths (ofthe country) with institutions(carrying with them ) the rights of sicarajya. Thefather who is himself adul-terous, whose predilection is to spend the whole ofthe family propertyupon his own indulgence and unrestrained conduct,and who does notfail even to , throw the burden of debt on the nextgeneration for thesake of his own pleasures and sports, that fatheralone conducts himselfin a turn-headed manner with a turn-headed son and (thus ) sets about com-mitting the heinous sin of making the son conducthimself without restraintevery day ( of his life ). To interpret the bomb asmeaning that the the people arepuffed up and are beginning to defy Government, islike asking Governmentto imitate (the doing of ) a self-willed,unrestrained and licentious father. Themeaning of the bomb is not well explained by thetheory of the arrogance ofthe people. The bomb is an instrument showing howexasperation is growingamongst the people by the acts of Govenment, and howthe policy of the Govern-ment has departed from ( all ) correspondence withthe proper wishes of thepeople. If there be any means of measuring theextreme degree of the people'sdisappointment and of the exasperation engendered bysuch disappointment,these are ( to be found in ) the excesses like

File1-Tilak Trialbombs. If there is any ( influ-ence ) that keeps ( a man ) from violence when ( he) is separated from thingsdear ( to him ), it is the ( slender ) thread ofhope, and when even this thread ofhope is cruelly snapped, then those who are scorchedby separation ( from theirbeloved objects ) become turn-headed. When a mansees nothing hopeful at allin his surroundings, then his mind naturally becomesdisgusted with thosesurroundings. When the surrounding circumstances aresuch that they connotbe agreeable to the condition of a society, or whena society becomes despondentand finds it impossible to bring itself intoconformity with its surroundings, thenterrible occurrences like bomb-outrages,transgressing all bounds, begin to takeplace. It is the opinion of Spencer that when aGovernment begins obstinatelyto practise oppression and persistently refuses togive proper respect to publicopinion, then such a state of things is positivelyproduced that chaages in theadministration are not brought by means other thanterrible means ; fhenature of the people and such surroundingcircumstances no longer harmonisawith each other ; and the terrible things that arerequired to be done at such atime to maintain harmony are called a revolution.Government should, at the

46

File1-Tilak Trialpresent juncture, keep this iDhilosophy of Spencerconstantly before their eyes ;owing to Western education, the spread of the ideaof nationality and the riseof an Eastern nation, the old national character ofnatives is at present under-going a change. An opposition has arisen between thenational character ofIndia and the institutions of Government, and thetime is approaching for actionbeing taken to bring about a harmony — an action ofrevolution- The means ofrecognizing this are, according to the philosophy ofSpencer, acts of violenceand recklessness like the bomb ( outrages ). Thistime of revolution has not yetbeo-un in India ( but ) it is to begin hereafter.Therefore, like a wise person.Government should, from the very first, seize withtheir hands this coming timeby the forelock; and, instead of leaving to thepeople the work af bringingabout the revolution, they should of their ownaccord begin to effect properreforms in th e system of administration; this willprove more beneficial both tothe people and to Government.

[H, /, J/.'s High Court, Bombay^Translator's Office, 11th July lOOS],

A true translation.L. N, MANKAR,

File1-Tilak TrialThird Translator^

M, 587.

r. 35.

47

Ex. Q.

[ Th^ following is the orifjinalMarathi tert oj theartiih cf trhi-.h E.-- 0-', isa translation. ]

5dW3TcTR5 ?52n=^^ ^=^ fTcTTcT "'T?^ W=^ IR5^[^'+,<^dqdld

^P^^ '^^:^^r:^^ W^^^RT' ^ ^PTT î^ ^ ?FT^'. ^<:'^vs^F^' ^Jj^f^s^r k(^#' f^^-

^^TR &percnt;^, ^ fî<4J<. ^ ^JTTfit &percnt;^, cRTfll^=MMi^3 F&percnt;^5rr#^3TT W^=^ IT^ |?m l'<^7^RT; icf^jifF^^^ ^T^n^gs^f R ^P-jd-.^-^loi'+.*Haia ^d^ fl^-Mlcri ITT^ ^ff. î^\s ^|criM*d<I^^^TF^TtcT ^ €fF^7 f^ST^ ttt^

^r^ 5T&percnt;^ ^ rft sfrnte^TT^ ^^dR Cr ^^ ^fTirnrr^ \^^\m^â\ Î'f.^dHi ^^^qwf ?^t^ T^ 3n&percnt;.

^rmte^TMr ?^^ 3??^ ^jt^tj^tt^ s^Rq^ ^FtJir^rr^f^F^Tiirf s ff^^r^ ^ptt^ aricyr,

File1-Tilak Trial

*i<'J|lii^ ?n^, fFTF&percnt;^ ^ f&percnt;^F ^F^STRTt TTcfj^TcT ITFt^FP^TR^ l'^ 3TT|. 3Tf4W<}4|K^ |3TmRT^ ^ W^ 5T^^ TTfl^. 5rsrrjRt&percnt; ^^T&percnt; ^F^ ?T^^ ÔT ^T^l^Î'^Ne^-iM-^ I crlNnrf^ ^ q^"^ 3Tf|?T, 3RTT ^=^^. ^R^BR&percnt; f|?RT^ ^ ?m^^TT^ 3TT ^rfe^ îrs^TT?#r^r f^rik^ f^^ s^^ ^^^ ^-

^BTcÎT ^^TT^ 3RK^ ^5(^1=^ ^R^RT^ =^3^ cJFRfr 3Tr|3TTFT c^TT^SJ ^VWR ^^^

î^ w>T^ ^^^ TT^nôqr^ ^R^^=^r ^ ^jfr ft^ ^Ct; ^r ^?cifirifte^TRT ^jt \^>qgrT=^t ^^ *<^^- ^f^\2 ^1^=^^ '^^jfr cTîrt^TTsrf^T&ri^ ^^R^ f^; fi srtRj^

?jr^n^T dl ^lM 4 cT T&percnt;T^R3TT^ ^TTm'c^Ttt^'F^T^r^^ 3T^f r ^^^ ^r^sT ^J^^ CRT ^TTft^fr ^^ ^T^ §^ ^tCt, 3T^ f^^RTT ^W^Jm SHTiT TTcpZ^^^q^cf ^t T^T ? ^T^F;j|tTT^T *r^cr RT^R ^S^, "^^ JTROTRT^r TFT •'îW^ ^Î^cT ^ WcSt, cT^ W3R!|t^^ ^RT^r^^ OT ? TTSi^^ ^R^ sft^ ^ff^ RW^^TT^^N^^d ^ cT^"JTt5TT

:tfqt^ 3TFT^ cÎT^ 3TTqWlW^T5R ^^T^îT ^^T^ 3TkÎ^5RIc?T ^^ ^ TT^^Î^^T^3Tf|. 3T^T loSf 4 Ti:^T^ ^^^TT^^ ^Tc5f qf?r TR,JT^CT '^f^ ^t ^^^;

^7l qmtcT l^cT 3RRn?TT ^TcfZT^ &percnt;m ^T^WTU ^STTJ^^Ttd" STTW, ^ WJ^ ^^>W^^f ^R5T Vm^ ^WIIN^>S TT^^^?jfT =^555r55 &percnt;^;qoT ^=^ ^T^ cST-iRST ^ft. ^f^

3TrT^ 3TT'7^'t 5'<7T^T ^^N?r ^ fTi^? ^ TTSR;^?it^3Tr +rRm5r ^ft^; ^t wm^r^j mj

File1-Tilak Trial^^^^n^^^T5^ ^tCi 3TTq^F3it^T srrq^ ^r^ f&percnt;î?^^, ^m w^n^m w.\t s^^^tt^

^1^ 15^^, ^^RTTft fiR^ '^fmi vrtûTT^ ^PR^ ^3^^,q^RR ^TfTTc^^r ^T^t^ ^RT^^FTT,

^ ^"tcft^ JTT'W^^ ^Tf?r ^^?:t sRfT^T^T, ^jTT^r|.qi=^^ ^^qp^r îiddPii'Twr^r jtpt ^^t

^rf^^RTRT WRT^T&percnt; ^"^ ^RT&percnt; ^7 sn^stel;^R5t cT^RffCr ^ 3TTcTcTRfl"Frr^

5TFT •<7^^. ^T^^T"!! frfcT TT^[J=^ ^^qT=^ ^ ^^^^:&percnt;^ ^rqu'-^t. ^tcT ^ f&percnt;=^r ^tt^tt

^^ Îf^T ^To5T^ Z^ f^^^^ ^ R^rte &percnt;^T^^W&percnt; =^5:^1^ 54^"^ ^^ W^

49

^^sRT ^TTc^^^TR ¥c5^r ^rCf. ^^TcJT tT^^ ^^t&percnt;,?t^{^jt^ 5n&percnt;^^fr; 5n&percnt; v.q^7^,^ f ^ ^^"^ 5F ^ îdid ii=i^N '^j?^. JT^T v,cj,o--m^n^'-'^^ft^r ^tt^stt stjrtrt, ^ | an^ypr ^jT^rsra

^j^ ^ 3T53TTTr ftcT Îdld cT^^^ ^T^# JR 3TT&percnt;^Sf^T^ ^; TW ^^ ^ *RH^ jj^^¦=MTfo5 ^^ ^ 5H 'Tâ^ ^JTT^ ^HK-^-m l&percnt;l^'K<^^c!Tt^ 3Tf^2T ^{J <<=ivK^ ^^fr^ ltd" ^ 51^^ ?ntf .^r^ î'+wm ^ sri^rr ^rî^ st^rt^ crr ^jr^tRj

&percnt;sr ^T'PJTRr ^^ ^RW^t STPT^ ^^ ^W3R5TTI7|&percnt;. ^rw^ ^fs^RT ^ qi^-

w^ î^t=^^ ^M ^T^ ?i3R ^"r ^wn 3TTî&percnt;^ f^T^,^ ^rf^^jq^ f re,W5^p^

File1-Tilak Trial

I^^ ^^. S^RT ^Pm 311557, ^TTT^ c^n^F STq^^Ê^TTi^s7rftlT?T['jf 55R ^^^ ^03[f&percnt;

4>

r&percnt;erJTr^ us^^^ ScJ^rr &percnt;^'4Rt?T ^5F?n^sttw, ^sttt^ ^ntnp^JT tRMTrst^^ 3t-4:^<^kîcr <-iuîi4cff 3T^^^ ^^ 3TT^'^^ ^û^r^T ^*K^r ^^mcfw^r ^c5?r ^p^ mkH4--d\.

=EqT^ &percnt;?n^^ ^ ^cTT^ ^^^TFR> ^^T&percnt; ^fô5^^ ^ ^^MHt '^W^J STlfrT 3T^, ^HFT^T^ m'^Nr^ 5W^fr 3TTÎî<5NW"JlM' W^ 5^T&percnt;^njrT n^ ^dl^MiJIN* î^ ^&percnt;^, 3T^^ ^l"

5n|?T, 3T^T wf ^r^ ^c[r, ^ctt^ ^ -^^t wmj^ ^t^^rw^^j^ng- ^^^^rt ^tio^n^r-g^ JT^^RTcT ^m^ w>€j ^tt^tt -îciî 3Tii:, ^si^^Rr^r ^tf^t ^^^rr ctt^ ^n^RRs^r '^jvm^

^cTT7 ^=Cf TU^Rm ÎMUÎ=^ ^ ^riT^ ^'-^ 3!W cR ^^k&percnt;o3TT^TR^ STcÎRR ^. f^Pf3fm1^ f^^f ?rR5T 3T^RTt^T 3^Mdl4l4tJ|im^H ^3R ^^TT^^ ^m ^^, cR cfr 3TT^^5

^JRTrcT. ^m<-^^l R^TcTTcT ^^ 375^^ ^Cr^ STT^ f^^RTJTTff, ^^ft cÎT^^? &percnt;fk 3TT'Tr3TT^

T&percnt;^ TTcfjr^T ^;tt^ i&percnt;t^ ^t^^?t sj^h4^hkî r'4^1^ ctrj c^rm ^^rssm &percnt;w 3?^^ tf"îtî"

3TrV tr^, ô^ ^WlESqr^TR^ ^dl^'-t^lNI ^^ ^ ^^ ^cJI^Tm^. ^^'^ 3T&percnt;

File1-Tilak TrialTRR'ili^ ^Jc^vT tr^; ^RJ^^^F^ ^ C<" TRR^&percnt; fftr^q^RT cH^ ^^r^T^Rrm ^cim;3TTm 3T^ |s7 ^^dl^'-iuil ^PJTMRrf^^ ^RTo^rr ^ârF^TT^T^^R ^rSRF ^tM 3RT J-ûidlrT-

3TRTt TR5?^ =ErR5^ 3TTf . ff^îTR^ ^RT ^fRJ ^ ^îff^^îfT ^T^""-^ WJ'^ ^R^ tl^^

^JT^RR'^TT^ u^ôqRr f^-sptcTM &percnt;3Tr-§^^r'KjFCr ^^ ^r^ ^^ stcT 3n&percnt;. I ^^-w^j^ ^r-^ fi^ jôr^ ^^^R^r ^cîiFn3r?fT^^r^rfrsqi^r^^T ^ncRrr^n'-i'Jii-^T ^

^^3i?Cr sTTf. h^ "^w^ MiîiiinHm wn s^tcs khî; ^r^r^r^ sritsv^ snq^F^n

^^^^^ l^^FT ^^, 1 5f^rF3T?rt^T ^ ^^^Rw fi^r^r ^m^fl^TRi: Jpt.

51

Ex. H.

{Trmislationof tlieMarathi leader lyrinted incolumns '^, ^ and d of 2>(^ge 4 of theisfiite of the ^^Kesari'' newspcqyet^ dated 2nd June1908, and Jiaving a foot-note, «•*<translated, " Tim newsjJaper tvas printed andpuUislied at the " Kesari '' printing'jrress No. 486 Na,rai/an Peth, Poooa, hy BalGangadhar Tilah " )

THE SECRET OF THE BOMB.

File1-Tilak TrialTrom the murder of Mr. Rand on the night of theJubilee in the year 1897 tillthe explosion of the homb at Muzzaffarpur,no actworth naming (and) fixing closelythe attention of the official class took place atthe hands of the subjects.There is con-siderable difference between the aaurders o£ 1897and the bomb (outrage) of Bengal-Considering (the matter ) from the point of view ofdaring and skill in execution,the Chaphekar brothers take a higher rank than (themembers of) the bomb-partyin Bengal. Considering the end and the means, theBengalis must be given thegreater commendation. Neither the Chaphekars nor theBengali bomb-throwerscommitted murders for retaliating the oppressionpractised upon themselves; hatredbetween individuals or private quarrels and disputeswere not the cause of thesemurders. These murders have assumed a differentaspect from ordinary murdersowing to the supposition (on the part of theperpetrators) that they were doing asort of beneficient act. Even though the causesinspiring (the commission of) thesemurders bs out of the common, the causes of theBengali bomb are particularlysubtle. In the year 1897 the Poonaites weresubjected to great oppression at thetime of the Plague, and the exasperation produced bythat oppression had not ex-clusively a political aspect. That the very systemof administration is bad, and that,unless the authorities are singled out andindividually terrorized, they woald notconsent to change the system — this sort ofimportant question was not before the

File1-Tilak Trialeyes of the Chaphekar brothers. Their aim was (specially directed) towards theoppression consequent upon the plague, that is tosay, towards a particular act. TheBengali bombs have of course their eye on thePartition of Bengel; but theglance of the bomb is ( also ) playing upon a moreextensive plains broughtinto view by the Partition of Bengal. Moreover apistol or a musket is andd weapon, (while) the bomb is the latest discoveryof the Western sciences.The Western sciences have strengthened the power ofthe official class inevery country. One ruler is able to fight -withanother ruler, but it has be-come difficult for the subjects in any country tofight with the army ofthat very country. The power of the army hasterribly increased in conse-quence of new scientific discoveries; and thebravery of the people mostcelebrated for their valour proves useless in aninstant before new gunsnew muskets and ammunition of the new sort. It wasowing to this reasonalone that the revolutionary plans of the Russiansubjects failed in theyear 1905-06; and if tomorrow the army of Englandbecomes completelysubservient to ( the will of ) the Emperor EdwardYII, and if His Majesty

52

be 80 inclined, ( he ) will be able to reduce to

File1-Tilak Trialdust, without taking muchtime, the institutions of Sicarajya like theParliament in England, whateverfitness for ( exercising the rights of ) Sivarajyathe people of England may-possess. The Western sciences have made the might ofarmies so terrible.But in that identical minute seed which contains thepower to produce amighty tree, is also born, along with the birth ofthat tree itself, the¦( principle of ) death, which is destined todestroy the tree. Death is ordainedat the very time of birth. Birth is first Been; theveil over death subsequentlybegins to be gradually removed God Himself createsthe Universe ( and ) GodHimself is the Governor of the Universe; it was theWesterners ' science itselfthat created uew guns, new muskets and newammunition; and it was theWesterners' science itself that created the bomb. (Fearing ) that the peoplewould uselessly continue to live on ( indefinitely )and that ( thus ) there wouldbe an excessive ( number of ) living ( people in theworld ), God createdthe sovereign remedy of death. This daily death doesnot possess theability to put a stop altogether to life in ( this )world; even though theoperations of death be going on without a hitch, theforce of mundanelife is not lessened. Death does not change thecurrent of worldly lifenor does it do away with worldly life. The duty oftaking away the pride ofworldly life is assigned to death ( and ) therefore,

File1-Tilak Trialdeath takes care not to allowlife to become impure. The military strength of noGovernment is destroyed bythe bomb ; the bomb has not the power of crippling (the power of ) an army ;nor does the bomb possess the strength to change thecurrent of military strength;

but owing to the bomb the attention of Governmenttowards./ . , a rac e .^ j.j^g|.gjj ^^ ^^^ ^^iqdisorder which prevails

owing to the pride of military strength.

Owing to the murders of 1897, the attention of theauthorities was directedtowards the disorder ( in ) plague ( administration) ; and since that time theaspect of the Plague administration began to changsand complete tarnsformationtook place in the plague administration very soonafter. It is at present beingasserted that Government care two straws for thebombs of the Bengalis. Whatdo the words " care two straws " mean ? The Bengalibomb-makers havethemselves admitted that the English Governmentcannot be overthrown by thebomb. There is no cause for Government to feel anyfear of the bomb too ;but the pride of military strength must necessarilybe afraid of the bomb andit is not derogatory to any mighty power to franklyadmit this fear. The plagueadministration in the beginning was ( such that itwas ) disliked by the people,was extremely vexatious and exasperating ; this factwas not at first known to

File1-Tilak TrialOovernment. Mr. Rand's murder brought this mistaketo the notice of Grovern-ment ; and after plague-riots occurred everywheresubsequently, Government

did not also hesitate to openly admit the mistake.It

i}} (J>) [Lit., it is no*^ ( & ) is not to beunderstood (& ) that because Mr.

® ^"^ ^ ^*' ^ Rand'ei murder took place, the plagueadministration

was ( proved to be ) mistaken ; the administrationwas a mistaken one from the very first, was wrongfrom the very start ; but it didnot appear to be mistaken to the authorities owingto (Iheir) conceit about

53

'( their own ) wisdom. Some things must be viewedfrom the people's stand-"'point ; it is by no means enough to look at themonly from one's own point of

view ; this light had not dawned (r) upon the minds[<'J^NI ^\ m^ M^MM mt, ^t ^m^^TT

sT^^^qr^^tft^ ^ ^Rjwn^^wc^ f^^-i^ arte ^?:^ ^^ ^ #^m.^,.t<^k< ^C^T^f! 3TNW^^ 3RTRT, 3T^ 51^^ f=^^ w^ ^q?rflT^ 3^1; ^ f=E?jr

W^f^^t ^R55 g ?I^nTT^ ^jqR ^ ^<*l<^' STOcJFT 3TrW

File1-Tilak TrialJfT^cT, ?IiT^ ^ci<(^^|^ ^^o^TT'EF, ^ ^<*K^' W^^ ^ ^TTfr, ^ ^- iffe y BalGangadhar Tilah " )

English rule is openly an alien rule. Well; ( and)that, too, has nob beencarried on like Moghul rule, by the rulers mixingwith Indian society; andthey are going to carry it on always as strangersindeed. Moreover, theyare not satisfied even with keeping only the rulingpower in their haadsj butthey want also to seize possession of the trade andindustries of this countryforcibly and unjustly or to ruin thenj. Well, evenafter doing so much, theyshould ( at least have ) kept the burden of taxationon the people light; but thevery reverse of it is seen to be the case ! Inshort, Sivarajya, (a) albeit of

the old type, is gone, trade has been ruined,, indu-

.[ a ] [L?t. one's own goyemmenfc gtries havecollapsed, glory has come to an end,or true; self-goveromeut ] t ^ -, , .,., , -,. ,

f i. ] [ Poveity,] wealth has departed, ability hasdisappeared and;

I o ] [ Famine, ] courage has failed. There is noeducation according

L d ] r Sucking up of wealth] ° »

[ p ] [ Lit pursuing.] to the new system, no rights,

File1-Tilak Trialno respect for public

opinion, no prosperity, no contenment; ( but only )there is the violent pressure of the three " d " sof daridrya-{ b ) dushkrl ( c ),find dravya^hQslta ( d) constantly troubling ( e )us. The moment an attemptis sought to be made according to ( one's ) strengthto raise up the head of thenation out of this, the head is sure to be bruisedby the stone-roller of th&Bystem of British rule ? In such a state ( ofthings, ) the fact that the bomb,party and secret socities have now arisen in Indiais not at all to be wondered,at, although it may be deplorable. On the contrary,if such a state of thingsJ) ad arisen in any country in Europe, then thepeople of that country would

never have shown as much patience and forgiveness,]/][ Lit, forgiving ^atufe, } (/) as the Indianshave done. The adage that life

is the dearest of all things to all is generallytrue.P.Ut when an individual begins to think that thevalue of exalted sentiments likereligion, morality, benevolence, self-respect, thehonour of (one's) family or countrypatriotisni, etc., is greater than th^t of lifeitself, it is an evidence of his spiritualelevation. No sooner do these sentiments begin totake (.their) rise in a nation,than it (becomes) the duty of true rulers to providean outlet for t-heir flow.Whenever, instead of do'ng that, an attempt is madeto obliterate, under the.

File1-Tilak Trialpressure of tyranny and high handedness, thesesentiments wherever they mightrise, or to check them on tjê spot by means of bigembankm,ents, it should beVindejstood that misfortune js eure to overtake thatcountry (including both)

the subjects ar^d the ruler. The result of therubers,(Lit., uptill today). having so (g) long disregardedthis truth established

(Lit., has come ©at)^ by the history of the world,is visible in the shap^

pf tlê Ba,ngali bomb.

Ji. J. M:s High Co&percnt;irt, Bomhay, A truetranslation.

TrunsJator's Office, 7th July 190S. ^ N, L. MANKAE,

Third Translotar.

No. 580

Ex I.

[ The folliowing; is. i?hfi originqtil MaratM tecctof tJm aviiGlB of; luhich Exi I, is<); translation. ]

?Tra, 1^^ ^W, ^rft ^^1",, ^^ ^rW ^ ftlTcT Wâ. ^sqiT^f^ T&percnt;2Fr ^"^ f^.

File1-Tilak Trial

^RT, <î*^di^ irr^ JTfCr, W^ ^^> w{r^\^ î, ^rft^,,^mî ^ ^^wq ^rr cTf^¦ ^ ' ^^Kr ^qj^r wmj JTFr ^fi^. ^Ttcj^r nsi^ ^(^ ^ôâqr^r sTsn^frR 5iqc?r ^&percnt;

^Rc^rrfr ^t^r ^r^r r^ctI irr^l- amcft ^^ w4\^ ^^t^Tft^r ^Fsti^^'r ^?Rrr^5crr ^cft=^[ ^^T 3^"!, ^j ^m^j^^j ^5^ ^Tst^ ^r^, ^FTcsr ^7c^rrû^r^ 3^ JT^fr^Tfr^^rr

3:^[^T^ ^q- ^^ c2{T ^ri^K-i{| ^ ^31^^7=5^ V[T^T^pTf^ JF^^TT^r 3Fr^ 3TT5,tl^ ^T^ ^TT^JT

\^«5 6(iTT^r î^&percnt; ^r^ 5ri|^ q^^ srfl.

62

Ex. J.l.

( Mr. Tilak's declaration as a Press — owner. ):

1, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, do hereby declare that Ihave a printing Press called,the Kasari Press at 486 Narayan- Peth, Poona City.

Poona City.1st July 1908. (Sd). Bal Gangadhar Tilafc.

Declared before me at Poona this 1st day of Joly1907.

(Sd.) a F. Carvalho»City Magistrate F. G..Poona,25—6—08 True- copy.

File1-Tilak Trial

(Sd). City Magistrate F. C. Poona..Sela of theCity Magistrate Poona.-

Ex. J. 2.

( Mr. ) Tilak*s declaration as Printer andPublisher* y

I, Bal Gangadhar Tilak do hereby declare that I amthe Printer and Publlt-Bher of a weekly vernacular paper called the Kesariwhich is printed and publicehed every Tuesday at House No. 486 Narayan PethPoona City.

Poona Ctry,1st July 1907. (Sd). Bal Gangadhar Tilak.

Declared bef or me at Poona this Ist day of July1907.

(Sd). H. F. Cravalho..City Magistrate F. C. Poona*.25~Q^08 True copy

Ed, (Sd.) City Migistrate F. C.Seal of the Poona.

"> City Magistrate of Poona,

63

File1-Tilak TrialEx. K.

^-

^

^Cwndv-vo/c

Y

orb

Qyftcdelrb (vOxfiiodvi

Of ^' /

(^iM. yy.iosmf ^z^vcKUf-ood conw

File1-Tilak Trial

^OilJ'

nw

Q-KtioJSiC,

vdvve:i

20 u (§A, ^^ehad Q/wmotd

9:

a /

/ V

^

[7^^.- *

^

File1-Tilak Trial

3o

64

Ex. L.

[ PANCHNAMA 01^ TH^ SEARCtI AT POONA. ]

PiNCHNAMA, t)ATED 25-6-08*'

f 1 ) Sivratii Pachandas Matwadi, having his shop inRavivar PethKapadganj, Pootta.

( 2 j Laxman fialkrisbna Katrajkar, Budhwar, Podna.

(3) Raoji Lalji Takkar, inhabitant of Kasba Peth,Poona." MouseNo. 335.

We the members of the IPanch were called by theDistrict Supetinteli-dent of Police, Poona at 7 a. m., on the 26th June1908, on Thursday,in Gaikwad's wada in Narayen Peth, and in ourpresence the DistrictSuperintendent of Police broke the seals of theKesari's Manager^s oflQce,and other rooms in connection with this paper, andon searching the same

File1-Tilak Trialtook possession of the papers &c. as stated below :—

(1(2(3(4

(5(6

(7

(8(9

flO

(11(12

(13

(14(15(16

Current file of theKesari Nos. 1 to 25 i. e. from7-1-08 to 23-6-08

Loose numbers of the Kesari as above, 1-25.

Do. Do. Do.'

File1-Tilak TrialReceipt Books Nos. 1-5 of the Kesari for the currentyear, dated1st Jsnuary 1908 to 25th June 1908, i. e. serialnumbers 1-1252.

One Ticket Book of the Kesari, with a brown papercover.

Day-Books for 1908 from 1st January 1908, to 24thJune 1908

( one rough and one fair all two. )

One Sill book of the Kesari for the current year.

Seven Registers of the Kesari's subsciibers ( lyistBooks ),

Line direction Books.

One copy of the Marathi Sarojini play.

One copy of Shri Maha Sadhu Shri DnyaneshwarMaharaja's Life*

One copy of the book called Prince William Orange ora historyof the rebellion in the Netherlands.

Four rough memoranda of the Postage Stamp Account.

One money order Book for the current year.

Kesari's three printed Sample Post cards.

One letter in English dated 15-10-07 addressed to'the EditorMarhatta, Poona from Carnel Boot Dyer Advertising

File1-Tilak TrialCompany

from America.( 17 ) One photo of Shriyuta Bipin Chandra Pal.

65

(18) One Note Book of the sale of the /^esa-rz horn.Godboler

(19 j Three letters printed in English regarding theDhulia Conference.(The address given by Rao Bahadur Joshi.)

One copy of the book called ' ' What it cost to bevaccinated ' '

One issue of the Dharma Masik Pustak including 5-7numbers.

Full text of the Presidential Address, PubnaProvincial Conference1908-manuscript copy.

{23) Rules of the Deccan Vernacular TranslationSociety.

(24) One copy of a leaflet-'Hear the other side.'

(25) Surat Congress Papers.

(26) National Memorandum.

(27) A letter in English dated 28-12-7 written by B.

File1-Tilak TrialG. Tilak to BijayaChandra Chatterji, Bar-at-law.

(28) One copy of the India House Magazine.

f29j One paper giving the astrological results ofTilak.

(30) One printed copy in English of the proceedingsof the 23rd IndianNational Congress.

(31) One manuscript letter sent by V. Vaijanathumfrom Kumbbhako-nam adressed to Tilak signed "Vaude Mataram" headed'An ArdentAppeal.'

(32) Some portions of the Amrita Bazar Patrikaissues dated -28-11-07and 1-12-07.

{33) One letter in English from Woodhouse.

(34^ Notes from Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

C35) One paper regarding a complaint againstParadkar Shimpi.

(36) Tilak's speech at Surat on 28-12-07.

{37) Notes on the proceedings of the SuratConference.

(38 J Cutting from the P^;2/<^<^z dated 10-8-07

(39) A cutting from the 'Public Eeisure' ofPhiladelphia dated 15-9-07.

File1-Tilak Trial

{AO) A cutting from the Mysore Standard dated19-8-07.

C41) Three pieces of cuttings.

(42) Five miscellaneous letters.

(43J Account of the Shivaji P\md. -^

{^^) A letter dated 4-9-05 from C. R. Gupta andCompany to Tilak.

(45; A letter dated 6-1 -O5 from Tilak to LalaLajpatrai.

r46^ One card with names of Hand-book on ModernExplosives.

06

(47 ; One letter dated 6-5-05 from Madhava Raghunathof Kolhapur.

(48) A teleoram dated 16-8-05 from Station MasterDhamangaon.

(49) Speech of Babu Arvinda Gosh dated 24-12-07.

(50) The Arctic Home in the Vedas.

(51) A telegram dated 18-10-5 from Bipin Chandra Palto Tilak aboutdeliveiing lecture.

(52) One letter addressed to Tilak regarding the

File1-Tilak Trialestablishment of religion.

(53) Address of Southern Mahratta Countrysubscribers of the Kesari-numbers 1 to 83.

(54) Do.

(55) Do.

(56) Do.

(57) Do.

(58) Do.

(59) Do,

(60) Do.

(61) Do.

(62) Do.<63) Do.

Papers as mentioned above are taken possession of bythe Police inour presence-dated 25-6-08.

(Sd.) Raoji Lalji Takkar.

Before me (Sd.) Shriram Pachandas<(Sd.; Digby Davies. Marvadi.

D. S, P. Poona. fSd.j I^axman Balkrishna'saiJ that Young Generation in Bengal would makeIndia another Russia.

File1-Tilak Trial

D. 21, Hi))du, May 22, p. (J, col. 2, .S.— GivesNepal Chandra Roy's answerto the * Cult of the Bomb/ who fastensresponsibility on both Anglo-Indian Pressand Bureaucracy.

D, 22. Indian Patriot, May 4, p. 4, col 1, 2.— Saysrepressive regime ismore responsible for troubles.

D. 23. I/idian Patriot, Maj 5, -p, 2, col. 2. — Saysthat national movement isdemocratic and derives its strength from thecharacter of alien Bureaucracy.

D. 24. Indian Patriot, May G. p. 4, col. 2. — SaysBureaucracy in India isreared in the atmosphere of despotism. The onlyhindrance to them is noticetaken by Parliament.

D. 25. India)! Patriot, May 14, p. 2, col. 1, 3, —Repression will kindle theflame of animosity and hatred rather than soothe thefeelings,

D. 2G. Indian Patriot, May 15, p. 4, col. 1, 2. —Without freedom of speechand Press it is impossible to keep alien Bureaucracystraight and says the presentsystem of autocratic Government free fromconstitutional restraints has enslavedpeople.

D, 27. Madras Standard, May 4, p. 4, col. 3—Expresses sympathy forBengal and blames Anglo-Indian Press for inciting

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment to sternest repres-sive measures.

D. 28. Madras Standard, May 6. p. 4, col. 2. Says-—Lord Curzon is the realauthor of all the present unrest in India and blamesAnglo-Indian Press forcampaign of villification.

D. 29 Punjahce. May, 9, p. 3, col. 1, — Regrets thatthere are Anarchists orSycophants only and no advisers.

D. 30. Tritmne, May 19. p. 4, col. 1, 2. — Deniesresponsibility ofVarnacular press and says that every red hotextremist paper is natural counter-partof fire-eating Anglo-Indian Journal.

D. 31. Pafrika, May 5. p. 6, col. 1,2. — Says,measures like partition andKiugsford's severities are the cause of unhingingthe minds of Bengalee youthsand impelling them to commit crimes.

D. 32. Patriha, May 6, p. G, col. 1, 2.— Quotes "Hindu Patriot »' and saysthat the best pest policy is to govern in such a wayas not to create conspirator.s.

D, 33. Patrilm, May 7, p. G, col. 1. — Dwells uponthe easy and small meansof the bomb campaign.

71

File1-Tilak TrialD. 34. Bengalee^ Jane 13, p. (), col. 1, — Explainsiiow timid Bengalees areturned into fanatical gazis.

D. .35. BenguUe, May 20, p. .5, col. 1. 2 and 3, —Blames Government lornot punishing Anglo-Indian papers \vh.o preachviolence against people.

D. 36. Patrika, May 31, p. 3, col. 2, 4. — Attacksbureaucracy and says thatthey are all Kings in India.

D. 37. Indian Spectator^ May 9, p, 361, and 362,col. 2. 3. — Distinguishes•between crimes which are offsprings of pureselfishness and crimes done inlarger interests. It says western literature andpolitical agitation favour develop-ment of aspirations and of independence intoseditious conspiracies.

D. 38. Indian Spectato}\ May 16, p. .381, col. I—Playfully deals with thesituation.

D. .39. Gujrathi, May 17, p. 707, col. 1. 2. 3 ; p.70-5, col. 2, 3 : p. 706, col.1, 2, 3. — Investigates into causes of unrest andholds Government responsiblefor the same.

D. 40. Gujrathi May 31, p. 770 col 1 ; p. 777, col.1. 2 ; p. 778, ool I, 2, 3.—Charges Government and Anglo-Indian Papers withsowing seeds of discontent.

D. 41. (lujratlii, June 14, p. 8.5S, col. 2. — Has a

File1-Tilak Trialhumorous skit on God"Bomb, says Bomb will make his name permanent if hewill bring reforms.

D, 42. Indu-Prakash, M.a.y ^j, -p. 7. col. 1, 2, 3.—Says there is a connection•between anarchism and surrounding politicalconditions,

D. 43, Indu-Prakash May 8, p. 2, col. 5. 6. —Connects outrages not so muchwith newspaper articles as with repressive measuresand Police high-handedness.

D. 41 Dnyan-Prakash May I'J, p. 2, col. 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, — Dwells on des-potic policy of Government and says repression willnot root out discontent.

D. 45. Dni/an'PraJcasJi, May 26, p. 2, col. 5. —Says outrages are thevenomous fruits of the poison tree planted by Lordcurzon.

D. 46. Dnyan-Prakash, May 30, p. 2 col. 3, 4, 5. —Says Anglo-Indian PressLates native Press because it hints that politicaldiscontent has led to anarchims.

D. 47. Dnyan-Prakash ^nuQ 7, p. 2, col, 3,4,5. —^Dwells on Irish Crime'sAct in this connection.

D. 48. Chikitsaha, May 27, p. 3 col. 2, 3. 4, 5. —Says— failure in politicalagitation will lead to anarchism and this wasforetold.

File1-Tilak TrialD. 48. A. Chikitsaka, May 13, p. 2. cols. 1, 2, 3,4. — Holds Curzon respon-sible who trampled public opinion under the feetlike a Sultan and extremism isdue to unjust and domineering policy ; attacksAnglo-Indian Press as lap-dogs ofGovernment barkiug at people,

D. 48. B. Chikitsaka, MsLj 20, p. 2, Go\. 1. —Attacks Anglo-Indian Press asidiotic relations on the wife's side ( ^\\^^ ) ofGovernment who are cruel, deceitfulsilly, vain, worthless hiding behind the tail ofImperial Lion.

D. 49, India, May 8, p. 231, col. 2; p. 232, col. 1,2; p. 533, col. I. — ExpressesEnglish opinion on the situation,

D. 50. India^ May 15, p. 243, col. 2: p 244, col. 2;p. 245, col. 2. — ExpressesEnglish opinion on the situation.

D. 51. India,, May 22, p. 258, col. 1 & 2 —Expresses Eaglish opinion on theBomb-outrages and the siiuatioa aad gives Mr. Datt'sinterview.

72

D. 52. India, May 21>, p. 269 col. 2; p. 270, col.1. 2.— Expresses Englisk.opinion on the Bomb-outrage and the situation andMr. Dutt's interview.

D. r)3. Iinlia, June 5, p. 279, col. 2; p. 281, col.

File1-Tilak Trial1; p. 282, col. 1.— ExpressesEnglish opinion on the Bomb-outrage and thesituation.

D. 54. Indicia June 12, p. 593, col. 2; p. 295, col.1. — Expresses Englishopinion on the Bomb outrage.

X). 55. Advocate of India, June 19 p. 7, col. 4. —Quotes Bishop of Lahore whosaid tliat order could not be preserved only byrepression and by smiting on thehead any who takes up a prominent position in thenew birth of India.

D. i>^' Mahratta May 24, p. 246, col. 1, 2. —Summarising English opinionon the situation in Bengal.

D. 56 A. 2Ialiratta, June 28, p, 304, col. 1. —Giving Gladstoue's opinionobout incitement to violence.

D. 56 B. Mahratta, March 15, p. 126, col. 2; p. 127,col. 1, 2.— Gives Tilak'sstatement before the Decentralisation Commission.

D. 57. Times of India, May 12, p. 7, col, 1. —Contains telegrams about Mr.Dutt's and Gokhole's first words aboutBomb-outrages.

D. 58. Oriental Eevieu; May 6, p. 131, col. 1, 2, —Holds Curzon responsibleand says anarchism is the child of despair.

D. 59. T/^n^-s o/7'?2c//a June 25, p. 7; col. 7. p.S. col 1. — Gives Morlei/''s

File1-Tilak Trialspeecli\t the I. G. S. dinner,

D. 60. Bomhay Gazette, July 2, p. 7: col. I, 2. —Morley and Cnrzon debatein the Lords.

D. 61. (rase^^e o/J/2(Z«rt, Nov. 2 (1907), p. 164and 165.— Rash Behari onSeditious Meetings Bill.

D. 62. Gazette of India, June 8, p. 1, 2, 3, 4, —Explosives and Press Acts,

D. 63. Gazette of India, June 13, p. 142, — SyedMahomad's speech onExplosives Act quoting "Ethics of Dynamite" from"Contemporary Review."

D. 64. Or^¦mfa^ -Kme«-, July I, p. 239, col, 1, 2. —Letter to the MorningLeader of its Calcutta correspondent saying *'Bombhas come to stay."

D. Qu). Contemporary Beview May 1894, p. 978 andonwards. — Article onEihics of Dynamite.

D. 66. Kesari, June 16. p. 4» col. 3. — Commentingupon Definitionof ' Explosives ' in ' Explosives Act,'

D. 67. Maliratta, Septpmber I ( 1907 ), p. 411, col.2 - Containing:account ot Zenger's case of seditious libel fromPhelp's letter from New York.

D. 68. StidMral, May 11, p. 2, col. 2.— Saying Bombwas foretold by

File1-Tilak TrialGokhale in 1905.

D. 69. Subodha Fatrika, May 10, p; 2, "col. 2— SaysAnarchism was-foretold.

D. 70. Subcdha Palriha, May 17, p. 2, col. 2— Policyof repression was-sure to end in anarchism.

D. 71. Sudharali:

DEFENCE EXHIBIT

Ex D 1

PIONEER— May 1, P. 3, Col. 1.

" If the moral disease were to spread elsewliere asit has done in Spain, thenon-criminal portion of mankind would eventually beforced to meet the Nihilist bypenalties indiscriminating as the bomb. A wholesalearrest of the acknowledged terro-rists in a city or district coupled with anintimation that on the next repetition of theoffence ten of them would be shot for every lifesacrificed, would soon put down thepractice, if it should become necessary. '"'

+ + + + +

" Let us only glance over the smooth LegislativeCouncillor with his quotations

File1-Tilak Trialfrom Burke, Mill and Milton complaining of rightswrested from the people, of thedrainage of the country's wealth to England, ofunredressed grievances, oppressionand want of sympathy, language which no doubt meansno more than Mr. Churchill's

appeal to the electors of Dandee." "' Then comes theCongress moderate who believes

that the British Government may be toleratedtemporarily, as a choice of evils aslong as it does not cross " the will of the people," who deprecates strong measuresagainst it, because they are not likely to succeed,but approves of minor ones, and byprinciple of all. Next, the more candid Extremistwho would openly have the Govern-ment out if he could and to that end is ready toexperiment with different wea-pons of boycott, strikes, abstention, and so forth,which the ingenuity of the partysuggests until a better may be forth coming. Belowthe Extremist come the lecturerand the vernacular editor, the latter of whom hasbeen steadily at his work for thelast thirty years and more, the former a newdevelopment, and both having for theiraim the direct inflamation of the minds of thepeople."'... .." Who can wonder that inthe last grade come the bomb-maker and the wretched,infatuated student whom hegets to do the Avork? They are the logical outcomeof the whole movem.nt as it stands.The nexus from top to bottom is complete." '- No onewill suppose that in saying thisit is implied that the average leading men of thedifferent sections of the Indian " Na-

File1-Tilak Trialtionalist" agitation actively approve of the use ofthe infernal machine as an instrumentof politics. Be their bitterness what it may, men asintelligent as Mr. Tilak and Mr.Gokhale, not to speak of those of the school ofMessrs Rashbehari Ghose ahd Surender-nath Banerjee, must be well aware that the bomb isas stupid as it is wicked. TheNationalist may be assured in spite of anything theKeir Hardies and Nevinsons maytell him. that the British people have not theremotest intention of retiring from Indiaand still less of being driven out of it by bombs.The Revolution that is to make head10

u

must have beliind it I'eal forces and real wrongs :not the insufficient separation ofJudicial and Executive functions or a Bill ( whicliis only remarkable as a dead letter )of precautions against seditious pviblic meeting.The only force that is apparent behindthe present agitation is the sentiment ofrace-hatred. That indeed had been steadilyfanned by the educated community until it has atlast taken hold in various quartersof the ignorant masses.''

Ex. D 2.

GliJAnATHl—{ Quoting 'Asian' ) May 31, P. 178, Col.2-3.

" Bengal should be treated and governed with the

File1-Tilak Trialutmost harshness and vigourby a ruler who is not afraid to put his heel downand — keep it there."....." During Mr.Keir Bardie's tour in India, he sowed more seeds ofsedition than any man who has

ever gone before him, or who is likely to come afterhim. " '' Mr. Kingsford has a

great opportunity and we hope he is a fairly decentshot at short range. We recommendto his notice a Mauser pistol with the nick filedoff the nose of the bullets or a Colt'sAutomatic which carries a heavy soft bullet and is ahardhitting and punishing weapon. Wehope Mr. Kingsford will manage to secure a big ^bag'and we envy him his opportunity.He will be more than justified in letting day-lightinto every strange native approach-ing his house or his person, and for his own sake wetrust he will learn to shoot fairly

straight without taking his weapon out of his coatpocket We wish the one man

who has shown that he has a correct view of thenecessities of the situation the verybest of luck ! "

Ex D 3

G'C^/^/Jjr^/— May 31, P. 773, col. 2-3— -Quotationfrom a Correspondent ofthe Englishman : —

" I submit, " says the writer of the letter, " thatpower? should be givento the authorities to suppress these agitators by

File1-Tilak Trialthe most ready and simple methods 5and were a few of these worthy agitators flogged inpublic by the toAVn sweepersand their presses confiscated, much of the glamourof the righteousnessof their agitation for the people would be destroyedand their dupes would see themas they are, and not in the kaleidoscopic lightwhich they endeavour to attract tothemselves. "

Ex- D 4-

PIONEER— May 11, j). 2, col. 1-2-3. — Acknowledgesjoy at the forging of theengine of destruction of popular liberty viz. thePress and the Explosives Act.

Ex. D 5.

STATESMAN-^May 5, P. 6, Col. 2-3.

But since the Partition of Bengal, the crowningfolly of Lord Guezon's regime,a different spirit has manifested itself, whoseweapons are apparently to be bombs and

75

dynamite. The Moderate Nationalists have foundthemselves ousted in the favour ofthe student world by a new school preaching a

File1-Tilak Trialdoctrine of unreasoning hatred ofEngland and hinting as clearly as a regard for theirown safety would permit at thenecessity of doing deeds which were only possible ifthe perpetrator was willing to diefor his country. These apostles of violence scoffedat the '' mendicant policy", as theycalled constitutional agitation, and advocated avague and imdefined but obviouslymischievous gospel of '• self-help." In thediscoveries made by the Calcutta policeyesterday, in the mangled bodies of an unoft'endinglady and her daughter, we see theresults of this ineffably silly but, unhappily,dangerous propaganda. How far BepinChandra Pal and others of the same extremist viewsintended that their wild talk shouldbe taken seriously, or how far they had the capacityto see what would be its probableconsequences, we do not know. But there can belittle doubt that their teaching hashad the effect of turning the heads of a number ofenthusiasts. These fanatics havebecome imbued with a morbid notion that in some waywhich they cannot explain theircountry has suffered i grievous wrong, of which theyare to be the avengers. Being,many of them, without any useful employment theybrooded over their fanciedgrievances until they were ripe for murder.

Ex D 5A-

STATESMAN~Muy 6, P. G, col 2-3.

If the confessions of some of the prisoners are tobe believed, they receivedmoney to assist their machinations from people who

File1-Tilak Trialwere not in tiie plot but whowere anxious that blood should be shed to avenge thePartition of Bengal and thesedition trials. '' Eespectable people, " says theAmrita Ba::ar Patrika, '• can, haveno sympathy with such dark deeds. " Respectabilityis a matter of definition, but itwould appear that men who were at least well-to-dohave subscribed funis to enablethe Terrorists to send one of their number to Europeto study explosives and tomaintain missionaries who went about India sowingthe seeds of revolt. Withoutmoney revolvers cannot be purchased, dynamitecartridges cannot be procured, andmaterials for the manufacture of bombs accumulated.The prisoners do not appear tobe men who could out of their own means carry on anexpensive campaign, and we are,therefore, driven to the inference that people whowould ordinarily be called respectablehave given their support to the wicked folly of theTerrorists. But the fact remainsthat the crack-brained enthusiasts who entered theconspiracy of bomb-throwing ap-parently had sympathisers among the respectableclasses, which have generally beenregarded as loyal and moderate.

Ex- D 6

STATESMAN—May 7, P. C, Col. 1-3,

That the Extremist propaganda is violent and bitterneeds no demonstration.The newspapers by which it is carried ou are engagedin a constant vilification ofEngland. Its orators teach the doctrine that the

File1-Tilak Trialregeneration of India must be securedwithout the help of a foreign Government, and thegeneral gh^raster of the aims of

76

its leaders is shown by their determination to wreckthe Congress rather than subscribeto a creed which is suggestive of loyalty to Englishrule. No argument is needed toshow that the general effect of this hostile andbitter agitation upon ill informedyouths must bs to turn them into potential rebels.The significant confession of theMozafferpore bomb-thrower, that he derived hisinspiration from the seditious verna-cular pre=s and the speeches of Extremist leaders,is conclusive on this point. Speakingand writing of the Extremist type have actuallyproduced a gang of Terrorists in

Bengal Bat as long as the boycott inculcates socialhatred, as long as the schools

are political seminaries, and as long as a, veileddisloyalty to England is no disquali-fication in a political leader, the forces whichtend to produce Terrorists will remain,

ExDOA.

STATESMAN— May lo. p, 6, Col. 2-3,

No one denies that a grave and critical situationhas arisen in this country. Anew and hideous peril has manifested itself,

File1-Tilak Trialconstituting a fresh problem which will taxall the resources of statesmanship. But these areconditions which call for a cool headand wisely considered action. To underrate thedanger would be folly, but to exag-gerate it is stin more foolish. What is gained bydrawing an indictment against awhole nation ? If it were true, it would be a truthto be dissembled ; while if false ittends to create the very evil that it imagines andprompts the Government to unjustand needless severities.

Ex. D 7.

TIMES OF INDIA— Mmj 4, P. 6, Col. 4-5— Chargesnative press and well-known nationalist speakers with the responsibilityof " working ferments in theyeasty brains. "

Ex- D 7A

ADVOCATE OF INDIA— May 4, P. 6, Col. 2-3.

But, apart from anarchist organiztaions, a morepeisistent and open factorin the spj:ead of political crime has to be takeninto account. The dissemination ofseditious literature goes on in spite of the

File1-Tilak Trialseverity of the penalties imposed on respon-sible and gailty parties, and that the poison oftendoei its work is only too clearlyproved in the case of the infatuated youth who withan accomplice carried out themurder of the two ladies. That he was a mere tooland that he was incited to the crimeprobably by the Calcutta " agency " is evident; butthe fact is that his mind hasbeen cirefuily educated for the work by reading theinflammatory litoratare whichin one form or another is scattered broadcast overthe country. We advocate nomeasure of undue repression when we hold thatsomething more must be done to limitthe criminal output of the printing press. The plainimpalatable truth is thatrepression so far has failed, not because it isI'epression but because it has not been

n

thorough enough. It is foolishness to attempt to cutoff tho heads of the hydra with apaper knife and it is the spectacle of that attempt\vhi^;h we are now learningto deplore.

Ex. D

BEXGALEE~M(nj, 5, P. -5, Col. 1, 2, Z.

File1-Tilak TrialAnarchism and nihilism are undoubtedly very badthing?, but more often thannot they represent a reaction against a state ofthings which is by no means eitherhealthy or normal. Not even the Enylishman willcontend in his saner hoursthat India is in a sound state politically or thatthe present abnormal conditionof things can last for ever. It was inevitable thatthere should be a reaction.The reaction has naturally taken a healthy form inproperly constituted minds andto-day the forces of nationalism in India are, byuniversal admission,, forces to reckonwith. But diseased minds there shaU always be, asthere have always been. Andit is quite possible that a great awakening likethat we have in this country should notonly arouse enthusiasm among the bulk of sane peoplebut excitement of the dangerouskind among people of a different temperament and ofa differnt mental constitution.

Ex D

BENGALEE— May ^,P^ 5, Col. 5.— Quotes Burke— ^'Coercion h a feebleinstrument of Government, conciliation the sovereignremedy. ''

BENGALEE— May S, P. 5, Col 2-5.

File1-Tilak TrialAfter all, there is, as there must be, a logicalconnection between all the dif-ferent movements which owe their existence to theoperation of the same great forcesand which have assumed different characters merelyby reason of the different materialsand the different mental constitutions on whichthose forces have worked. But fromthis point of view there is a close connection notonly between the Congress and thebomb-outrage, but between the bureaucracy and itsadvisers on one side and the bomb-thrower on the other. Would such an outrage as wehave recently had have been

possible in modern Ejigland ? It is difficult toavoid the conclusion that it is only in

countries despotically governed and where no meansexist for making the voice of thepeople eft'ective in their own government, thatanarchism and similar Lsms can expectto grow. Xo more convincing proof of the truth ofthis general statement can possiblybe found than is afforded by the discovery of ananarchist organization in Calcutta, thecapital city of India. If ever there was a countrywhich might be expected, from its

traditions, its culture, its peculiarrace-characteristics, to be averse to such a criraoasthe one recently committed at Muzafferpur, it isIndia. The bomb-thrower, let it be

distinctly understood, is a very different personfrom one who is resolved, even deter-mined, to have political wrongs righted. The

File1-Tilak Trialbureaucratic form of government and

78

its advocates and champions, therefore, must sharewith the Nationalist and his move-ments the responsibility for having bi-ought thebomb-thower into existence. Indeedthe responsibility of the former is much greaterthan that of the latter. The latterhave only this in common with the bomb-thrower thatthey are the products of thesame forces, the effects of the same cause. Oan thesame thing be said of the former ?..." After all, the Unrest is but a passing phase,the permanent problems of the admin-stration remain ; "' so writes the /. D Neirs, whichis not now unsympathetic to Indianaspirations. The Statesman, speaks of the Partitionas '¦¦' the crowning folly of theOiirzon regime. "

BENGALEE— May 9. P. -5, Col 2.

There is hardly a single sentence in this paragraphwhich does not contain amisleading statement or a still more misleadingsuggestion. In the very first sentencethere is the insinuation — ^as false as it is wicked— that a connection exists or has beenestablished between Swadeshi cum-boycott- cum-»Svvaraj propaganda and the recent out-rage. Yet the whole controversy between theAnglo-Indian and a section of the

File1-Tilak TrialIndian Press rages round the questioa whether such aconnection does really exist. Wehave shown again and again that on the same groundson which a connection maybe established between the outrages and theNationalist movement, the same if not amore intimate, connection, must be admitted to existbetween the bomb-thrower and the

bureaucracy But we are more concerned with theEnglishman's paragaraph. Oar

contemporary seeks to controvert the statement that'' the boycott is a movement basedentirely upon love '' by reference to a number ofalleged occurrences for not oneof which can the boycott as a movement be heldresponsible. If a boycotter hereand there went to excesses, there were the courts oflaw to take cognizance of hisdoings. They could not discredit the movement unlesseither of two things wereshown. Is there anything in the faudamental idea? ofthe movement — is thereanything in the professed methods — 'Which showsthat the movement is based uponhatred of the foreigner V And has the mDvem3nt inpractice been carried on by thebalk of those who owe allegian:;e to it in a mannerwhich proves that, if not basedupon hatred, it must, at any rate, be fosterei by it? On both these points only one ans-wer is conceivable and that answer has lo.ig beenrecorded by the impartial historian.It has never been contended by those who urged thatthe movement was based uponlove and not hatred that the boycott of foreigngoods could be effected without creat-

File1-Tilak Trialing any bitterness in any quarter. Certain interestswere bound to be affected andit was inevitable that those whose interests wereaffected would take up a hostileattitude towards it. Is the movement to be blamedbecause it excited hostilityin that sense ^ That woald be another way of sayingthat India's economic servi-tude must contnue for all time. Surely if " love "only means acquiescence in anabnormal and certainly ruinous state of things, wehave yet to understand themeaning of that word.

79

Ex. D 12

BENGALEE— May 10, P. 5, Col. 1.

There are two sets of opinion which have gatheredround the homb-outrageincident, contending for the mastery. There is thebody of Anglo-Indian opinion, ofwhich the Pioneer and the EnglisJanan are theexponents. In better days the >St(ite.s-vian assumed an attitude of healthy neutrality,taking up no sides, but declaring forjustice and truth. Unfortunately those days are pastand gone ; and the Statesman to-day is as keen in its support of Anglo-Indianopinion as the most rabid of Anglo -Indiannewspapers. Opposed to the Anglo-Indian journals arethe organs of the educatedcommunity throughout India. The Anglo-Indiannev/spapers will not be satisfied with

File1-Tilak Trialthe punishment of the offenders. They wantrepressive measures — they want a modi-fication of the existing law, so that the hands ofthe Executive Government may befurther strengthened. The Indian section of thePress, on the other hand, is of opinionthat the present law is amply sufficient for allpurposes.

BENGALEE— May 11 , P. 5, CoL 1.

There is a tendency in some quarters to denounce theso-called agitators forthe present unrest and the consequences that havefollowed in its train. Nothingcould be more irrational or short-sighted. Theagitators are in no way responsiblefor the present unrest. What they have done is togive voice to the public sentimentand here and there to organize the public impulsesfor definite expression. It is thepolicy of the Government that is largely responsiblefor the prevailing discontent. Theagitators would not have been listened to if theirappeal did not find a response in thedeepest feelings of the nation. The policy of thelast sixteen years is responsible forthe present deplorable state of affairs. It is apolicy which has been marked byre- action and repression and by a total disregardof public opinion. This reactionarypolicy reached its climax during the days of LordCurzon. And the partition of Bengal

"was the crowning foUy of that regime The open soreof the partition still

File1-Tilak Trial

remains. It is the root-cause of the prevailingdiscontent and the partition wasfollowed by a policy of repression unheard of in theannals of British rule in India.Here have we not the explanation of the vv^holesituation '? It is no use denouncingthe agitators. They are not the authors of thecrisis with which the country standsconfronted to-day. On the contrary more than oncedid they raise their warning voice.The historian wiU lay the blame upon the heads ofthe bureaucracy, which rejectedtheir counsels of prudence, and those of theirsupporters in the Press,

Ex D 14-

BENGALEE— May IS, P, o, Col. U2,

Of the same type as the Asi^m and its backers inCalcutta is the Madras Times,whose Calcutta correspondent had the goodness totelegraph a few days after the

80

Mozefferpore outrage : — ''The injuries received inthe outrage are too ghastly and pain-ful to describe. If detailed, the narration wouldproduce a feeling of universal horrorand angrv elamour for Ij-nch law, and would stirevery European to some emphatic andactive protest, as the feeling of revulsion would betoo strong to suppress." Thereuponthe Madras Times discoursed editorilly on the "•

File1-Tilak Trialtiger qualities "' of the race, and ami-able things of tliat sort ! Our only object inreferring to these silly effusions is towarn the Government that they should not hesitate tolet it be known how they viewconduct, so unworthy of Englishmen in a situation ofsome gravity. It is no answer tosay that there are writers in the '• native •' presswho write undiluted nonsense similarto that in the Asian and the Madras Times. Thedifference is this; the writers in the''¦ native "' press get punished, whereas thesuperior gentlemen who spout venom in theAnglo-Indian press are unscathe \ The leaders of the*' native " community areexpected and, indeed, peremptorily called upon toexpress their abhorrence of undesir-able writings in the '• native '"' press; butapparently there is no corresponding obliga-tion upon the leaders of the European community todo likewise as regards simillarwritings in the Anglo-Indian Press. There is anotherimportant difference. Thesespouters of venom — these inciters to racial feeling— expressly declare that they arevoicing the feelings of the entire non-ofiicialEuropean community when they say thatIndians should be lynched or shot indiscriminately.Their confreres in the '*' native "

press do not profess to speak on behalf of theircommunity <... We think it is time

that Government taught a lesson to these gentlemen,who prostitute their positionfor the purpose of stirring up civil strife bydeliberately fomenting -racial hatred.It would be a reproach to Government if they fail to

File1-Tilak Trialmark their disapproval ofthese incitements to racial passion habituallyindulged in by Anglo-Indian papers ofthe gutter press variety.

IjEXGALEE — Marj 2S, P. 5, col^ 6. (QuotesEnglishmmi' s correspondent).

Meanwhile what many of us now see is a reptile presgday after day deliveringitsell; of statements of opinions which can only beinterpreted as seditious, disloyal andthoroughly harmful to the country at large.Experience has shown that the presentenactments are not sufficiently strong to check themischief which is being done andmost people in Simla hope that the home Governmentand the Government of Indiawill quickly come to a conclusion that measureswhich may be called more Russian intheir method are becoming absolutely necessary forthe safety of the country.

Ex- D 16-

MNGALtlE^May SI, P. 5, col. 1.

Who is responsible for the present state of thingswith their many unhappy de-velopments ? The Anglo-Indian Press, the mouthpieceof the bureaucracy, throws theresponsibility upon the political agitators. TheIndian Press, voicing the public feel-ing of the country, lays the blame upon thebureaucracy. It says that the Govevrnment

File1-Tilak Trial

81

has, ioY the last fifteen years and more, followed apolicy of reaction iu utter contemptof public opinion, that the efforts of theconstitutional party for reforms have been aseries of failures and in consequence a section ofthe community have lost faith insuch methods. The result has been the birth of wide-spread unrest and discontent, inwhich it was only natural that some people shouldlose their heads. Therefore, if con-tentment and happiness are to be restored and thingsare to be brought back to theirnormal condition, a policy of conciliation andreform should be adopted without the leastpossible delay. Repression will not touch the heartof the evil. It can at best deal withonly the outward symtoms. Mr, Macnicol, writing tothe London Spectator from Poona,says : — ^< No one can doubt that slow-moving asIndia has hitherto been, of recent yearsshe has been advancing politically with remarkablerapidity, and the advance has beenunmistakably towards ideals that are becomingincreasingly difficult to reconcile withBritish domination. If she is to be persuaded tohalt on her way to that goal it willonly be, in the opinion of many, if generous andprompt measures are taken to satisfyresonable demands of the moderate leaders, andassociate her people in the governmentof the country, both at the top in the ExcutiveCouncils and at the bottom in Village andDistrict Councils." Sir George Birdwood is anollficial of officials, and one would expect

File1-Tilak Trialthat he would be the last person to say anythingwhich would imply a reflectionupon the present methods of administration. But thisis what he writes : —

"Our rule is strong and just, but it is notsympathetic; and the more impregnablein a material sense our position in India becomesthe more likely are we to be confirmedin the egotistical methods of scholastic, literaryand artistic education and of religiousproselytism, we have so strenously enforced on itsmany-languaged and its many-religioned peoples. We are destroying their faith andtheir literature and their arts, andwhole continuity of the spontaneous development oftheir civilisation, and their greathistorical personality : in a word, we aredestroying the very soul of the nation. Thisis the cause of the restlessness that by those whohave eyes to see and cars to hear is tobe found everywhere fretting into the very hearts ofEnglish educated peoples in Indii."

Ex. D 17

.WDERN REVIEW— June 190S, P. 547—551.

Political assassination and Westebn sentiment.We never suspected the existence of any secretsociety in India with aims and objectslike those of the Fenians, Nihilists, Anarchists orTerrorists. Secret societies with political assas-sination as their object or method of work, are aproduct of Western civilization. The Kussiauexile Prince Peter Kropotkin is said to be a greatadvocate of such methods and societies. Butthe soil of India is not favourable to the taking

File1-Tilak Trialroot or growing and thriving of such an institu-tion. It is foreign to the genius of our race. Thetruth of our assertion is borne out by themiserable failure of the plot of the terrorists (they are not anarchists ) of Calcutta. In Westeincountries political assassinations are not condemnedby even thoughtful and respectable peopleas they ought to be. Their perpetrators are lookedupon as hei"Oes, and, if caught and executedas martyrs. They are not branded as murderers. Thisis evident from what Matthew Arnoldaays in one of his poems from which we extract thefollowing lines : —

'• Murder ! — but what is murder ? When a wretch

For private gain or hatred takes a life,

We call it murder, crush him, brand his oamo.11

82^

But when, for some great public cause, an armle, without love or hate, austerely raisedAgainst a power exempt from common checks,Dangerous to all, to be thus annull'tl —lianks any man with murder such an act ?With grievous deeds, perhaps; with murder, not. "

Such approval of political murders cannot be foundin Indian literature. Nor is the instifica-tion of political assassination rare in Englishephemeral literature. For instance, when in 1906certain persons were assassinated in the villa of M.Stolypin, the Russian premier, the Pioneer

File1-Tilak Trialwrote in its issue of the 29th August, 1906 : — '*The horror of such crimes is too great forwords, and yet it has to be acknowledged, almost,that they are the only method of fighting leftto a people who are at war with despotic rulers ableto command great military forces againstwhich it is impossible for the unarmed populace tomake a stand. When the Czar dissolved theDuma, he destroyed all hope of reform being gainedwithout violence. Against bombs his armiesare powerless, and for that reason he cannot rule,as his forefathers did, by the sword. Itbecomes impossible for even the stoutest-hearted mento govern fairly or strongly when everymoment of their lives is spent in terror of arevolting death, and they grow into craven shirkers,

or stustain themselves by a frenzy of retaliationwhich increases the conflagration they arestriving to check. Such conditions cannot last."¦¦¦• Again, in the year 1900, the Pioneer publi-shed in one of its issues what it no doubtconsidered a very humorous poem, but what everyright-thinking man will consider an almost openjustification of or incitement to the politicalmurder of " Babus " by Englishmen. We quote the laststanza :—

" And he travelled by train to that Babu Bhagwan,And slew him with Handle-Broom wood,And lessened the number of Babus by one.Don't blame him. He did what he could, "f

Thus it will be seen that even Anglo-Indian papersapprove of or justify the conduct ofpolitical assassins or murderers when such crimesare committed by Europeans in India or in theChristian countries of the West ; though they cannot

File1-Tilak Trialbe expected to take the same attitudewhen the scene ia India, the assassins are colouredmen and the victims are colourless. But wecondemn such crimes, wherever or by whomsoever theymay be committed. Righteousnessuplifteth a nation and a good cause has never beenadvanced by crimes. The well-knownPersian poet Shaikh Saadi has said ; —

" RoM vast haroh agar clia dur asi.""Always walk in the path of righteousness, even ifthe goal be distant.''This is also our advice to our countrymen.

The Calcutta bomb-makers have presented ViscountMorley with an unquestionably newfact, which he wanted for the reconsideration of theBengal Partition question though even sucha fact will not, we are sure, unsettle his " settledfact. " Our most radical Secretary of Statemust get the credit of having produced thebomb-thrower, — a unique performance. The ultimatecause of terrorism in Bengal must be sought in theutterly selfish, highhanded and tyrannicalpolicy of the Government, and in the contemptuousand insulting manner in which most official

¦¦' This passage is taken from the Prabasi for themonth of Fyalshtlia^ in which it wasfirst extracted.

fQuoted by Babu Nepal Chandra Roy in a letter which;he addressed to the Pioneer, whichthe latter had neither the fairness nor the courageto print.

File1-Tilak Trial

83

and' noa-officiai Anglo-Indians have spoken o£ andtreated Bengalies. Tlioy have ridden rough-shod over the feelings of the Bengahs and turned adeaf ear to their strongest and most reason-able respresentation, supported by facts andligures. The Russianization of the administration in

spirit and methods has led to the conversion of asmall section of the people to the methods ofRussian terrorism. It is simply a question of actionand reaction, " stimulus " and "response,"Persistently uniighteons administration has aninevitable tendency to make men seek desperateremedies. Finding no remedy in constitutionalagitation, burning to wreak what they consi-dered "national vengeance," impatient and eager towipe off the cowardly Hbel that Bengalis arecowards, some desperate young men have had recourseto desperate and unrighteous methods.The result has been a mistake, horrible in itsconsequences. Instead of the man they wanted tokill, they have murdered two innocent women whosedeath is deeply deplored.That is almost invariably a feature of assassinationby bomb-throwing. More often than not, itis innocent persons who die, not those whom thebomb-throwers consider guilty. Even when thelatter are killed, some innocent persons are killedalong with them. So tliat tlie method isessentially reckless and wicked, and we may add,cowardly. For there is no heroism in killingan unarmed person, whom, moreover, the assailant hasnot the courage to face. It appearsfrom the confession of one of the terrorists that

File1-Tilak Trialthey were clear-headed enough to understandthat they could not make their country free bypolitical murders : and they were right. Politi-cal liberty is gained as the result of a trial ofstrength, which may take either the form of ablood-less struggle including passive resistance andindustrial competition, or that of an armedrebellion, which latter is out of the ([uestion inIndia. In either case, though the preparationmay be made in secret, the tight must necessarily beopen. The Aveak cannot win, the victDvyrests with the strong ; and righteousness addsstrength to a cause. But, leaving aside thequestion of righteousness, what element of strengthis there in assassination ? If you .ivastrong, why not come out in the open and fight ? Ifyou are not strong, you will be crushed.If you are not strong, bomb-throwing is not the wayto develop or acquire strength. The veryfact that from start to linish terrorism must haverecourse to secrecy and craft, shows its in-herent weakness. It is imaginable that bomb-throwingmay be practised on a very extensivescale, on the scale of a regular war. But thoughimaginable, it has never yet been found practi-cable even in European countries, whore, unlikeIndia, alihnsn ( abstention from killing ) is notconsidered a supreme virtue. Even if it werepracticable, it would be none the less wicked, asinvolving the reckless sacrifice of innocent lives.Moreover", terrorism even on an extensive sca'ehas not secured freedom to any country. Besides,terrorism may be put down by the use ofstill greater brutal violence ; but when a nationtakes its stand on righteousness nothing cancru'^h it, — all the forces of the universe are onits side.

File1-Tilak Trial" How TO DAKE AND DIE. "

But the bomb-thrower may reply, as in fact theiralleged leader Eai'indrakumar Ghoshhas to all intents and purposes done, " your sermonis lost labour. We did not mean or expectto liberate our country by killing a few Englishmen.We wanted to show people how to dareand die." We admit that they have shown greatdaring, strength of nerve and coolness, andhave proved that they are not afraid of death ;their truthfulness ( with the exception of ote )and their unbroken resolve not to betray theirsupporters and purvayors o£ arms and am'mimi-tion, as they had evidently given their word not todo so, are also exemplary. Great, t)0, istheir devotion to the country's cause, as theyunderstood it. They recognise, too, that God'scurse is upon their work. Would that there were inour country careers open to our young menwhere they conid in legitimate and honourable waysshow how to dare and die ! Would that alloffices in the army and navy were open to indigenousworth ! For military virtues still existeven in Bengal. Would that the Government couldunderstand that when the avenues of honor-abl ambition are closed, the aspiring spirit is notcrushed, but only led astray into wrong paths !Would that these- young men were not misled intocrime ! Would that all our young men could

84

Starve tho Motherland with equal ilevotlon, daring,tnithfulncss, steadfast loyalty and skill, inthe righteous path of the loving service of every

File1-Tilak Trialson and dangter of India ! What a great pity itis that such qualities of head and heart should notonly not he available for the uplifting ofIndia, but on the contrary should earn theirpossessors the condemnation of all right-thinkingmen. Both Government and the people are in thepreseuce of a most difficult problem. ToGoverument we liave nothing to say. For, thebureaucracy may not understand that thehighest courage and statesmanship consist inrecognising one's mistake and retracing one's stepsfrom the path of seitish tyranny, and that anyfurther Russianizartion of the administration issure to be confronted with a iiercer Russianresponse on the part of at least a section of thepeople. To our countrymen our humble advice is thatthey should steadily follow the path ofrighteousness in the midst of all temptations,trials and provocations. Let them not give way topanic. Let them not weakly believe that the mistake,however criminal and terrible, of afew young men, can obstruct their progress, if theyare true to their country's cause. Letthem do all that will make the nation physically,intellectually, and Bpiritually strong. Let themdare, but dare righteously, and die, if need be, intho country's cause. Let them not indulge inCJwardiy and insincere exaggeration in condemningthe misguided young men under trial. Iti i not for us to judge. God will judge. It may beeasy for arm-chair critics who are incapableof risking or sacrificing anything for humanity toinveigh in unmeasured terms against personswho have made a terrible mistake, but who,nevertheless, were prepared to lose all that menhold dear, for their race and country : — personswhose fall has been great, because, perhaps,equally great was their capacity for rising to the

File1-Tilak Trialheights of being : but, for ourselves, we pauseawe-struck in tlie prerfence of this mysterioustragedy of mingled crime and stern devotion.Deplore as we do the death of the two Europeanwomen, and stroni^ly condemn the murderousdeed, we scorn to associate ourselves, even in ourcondolence and condemnation, with thoseAnglo Indian editors and others who have not even aword of regret to express when brutalAnglo-Indians kill inoffensive and defencelessIndians or assault helpless Indian women. Whatever feelings we expres3,we must do independentlyand in measured terms.

Ex D 18

INDIAX WORLD—May 190S, P. 472—76.

The bomb has come at last. All through its long andanxious period of travail signswere not wanting to show that the cult of violencewas daily gaining ground.Q^i °"^ Leaders of public movements looked with thegreatest concern and anxiety uponthe new developments, which were every day growingin the public life of thecountry. They felt that a tone of almost brutalanger, so far foreign to Indian politics, was fastshowing itself ainong the ranks of the youngerpatriots. They found that the tight grip thatthey had over the public movements of the countrywas fast loosening and that they could nolonger be sure of the almost mechanical disciplinewhich guaranteed the peacefulness of allpublic movements in the past. The principles uponv/hich they pinned their faith would nolonger appeal to the people and they were ever andanon breaking loose from the strait lace of

File1-Tilak Trialdiscipline and constitutional agitation. Leaders ofthe people who knew their temper and hadthe interest of the country at heart were not slowto appreciate the gravity of these develop-ments and felt with tho greatest concern that eachstep forward in the game of represssion thatthe Government took only fanned the smoulderinganger of the people ; and it might any dayburst into flame : Dr. Rash Behari Ghoso with allthe flower of his rhetoric and Mr. Gohkalewith passionate earnestness apijealed to theGovernment from their seats in the Supreme Legisla-tive Council to stop the game yet and save thecountry from a great disaster.

The Government met these appeals with almost amusedcontempt. Mr. Baker on on©occasion, referring to the apprehension thatsedition might be driven underground by repression

is

Said that he hail no such apprehen?iion, Notoriety,he saiil, was as the breth o£ the nostrils of thesedition-monger and if only opportunities for thatnotoriety were taken away his occapationwould be gone. So tho Government sat tight in itssettled conviction that the only thing to dowas to govern "thoroughly;" neither the age andwisdom of Dr. Ghose nor the passionate anxietyof Mr. Gokhale caused them the least flutter. TheBomb only shows that, here as ever beforeiu History, the representatives of the people wereright and the Government was wrong.

Laboured attempts have been made to father upon ail

File1-Tilak Trialand sundry the responsibility forthe outrage at Mozatfarpore and it has beensuggested that the leaders of publico- of tl o * Jiiovements in India are in a wayresponsible for thejoutrage ; for it was they*^ Bomb. w^'O ^^^ t^^® ^^^^ rolling by ventilatingthe political grievances of thepeople. If you go at that rate, you may liave toland in the long run on thebattle of Plasey or perhaps on the first advent ofthe English in India. That sort of argumentwill never do. You have to take account of thenatural impulses of mankind end then lookfor the proximate causes. Taking Indians to beendowed with the common gifts and failings ofall mankind you have to consider the natural eflEectof things. In the most disciplined societiesthere must be desperate characters, and because theutterance of an honest truth about a personmight rouse such men to acts of violence, no canonof legal or moral responsibility will saddlethe honest truth-speaker with the burden of thedesperate act. In the Indian national partythere has recently been an accession of a largenumber of men of all sorts. The aims and objectsof the party as well as their actions have all beenabove board— They have only sought to seethat right be done to India and the wants of thepeople be properly attended to, that steps betaken with a view to the ultimate self-Government inIndia. They got stolid indifference,studied establishment of neglect, open persecutionand undeserved conteujpt and coatumelyfor all their troubles. Of late their patience hasbeen sorely tried. The leaders of the move-ment have kept their heads wonderfully cool, cool tosuch a degree as to have themselves beenbranded by their more ardent compatriots as infamous

File1-Tilak Trialcowards. But the more excitable amongstthe people have broken off from their leaders. Theywould not brook this insult upon the peopleat large but would retaliate. They became SinnFeiners and acute disaffection was ringing intheir breasts. But the government had made up itsminds to be foolish and heaped on all sorts ofacts on the heads of these people and displayed anattitude which would rouse up the temper ofpeople in any country. It is a matter for wonderthat some at least amongst these ardent pat-riots driven to desperation should be taken up withthoughts of taking revenge by means which,to the sober minded rnan, may seem to beridiculously out of proporatiou to the end in view,butwas in fact all that they had atlheir disposal. Itwas silly and unwise from all points of viewwhether you look upon peace and order as too sacredto be lightly touched or whether you lookupon any revolution as justified at any time and byany means and for what ends soever, you cannotbut look upon the bomb-outrage as indiscreet,injudicious and harmful to the last degree to anycause you wanted to be furthered. All the same, thisoutburst on the part of some warm youngmen cannot but be regarded as the natural results ofall that preceeded it. It is certainly the resultin the long run cf constitutional agitation and theconse(|ueut waking up of the people to a senseof their right ; but that perfectly legitimatefunction would never come to these excesses if thogovernment had not by a series of wonderful actssought to insult public opinion and its leadersand if it had not sedulously cultivated in the mindsof these young men morbid unreasonable suspi-cion that all that government did or said wasinspired by nefarious motives. It is a notorious

File1-Tilak Trialmaximwhen it is done by a wrongful act or with a wrongfulintention tliat provoking crime is only wrong.

That these young men were inspired by a very loftydesire is quite clear. Their

mischief lay in a certain intellectual aln-ratiouwhich lod thera to magnify the

The Lesson of ,j. of oppression of the British Ruleand to minimise the desirability and utility

the iJomb. i j re . , , . x- • i-u j j

of peace and order. It is ceitamly true thatrevolutionp are sometimes juatitied and

more than once in history have secret secietie* beentho cradle of legitimate revolutions. In

16

tbeiniselves than, tlieir actions 'ire notvilluinous ov immoral. What makes them most to bedeprecated is tlie failure to take a proper measureof things and in their convincing' themselvesthat British Rule 2'C^' •''^ was such an intolerablenuisance that it has to be got rid of by immediateviolence. It is the loss of a sense of proportion intilings that has led these young men to holdthe violent views that they have held and do theacts that they have done. The culpability ofthese acts lies in tlieir running counter to tliebest interests of the people and the matter forcongratulation is tliat their attempts have so

File1-Tilak Trialsignally failed. A larger amount of success wouldbave made the situation disastrous if notimpossible. The proper thing for us now therefore istodispel the false notions that have got hold of thepeople of tlie magnitude of the evil of BritisbRule per se and is to develop a correct opinionnhont our political position with a view not toseek anybody's favour or good opinion but in thebest interests of the people themselves. In-dignation meetings therefore made to order orotiierwise will not do. What we want is anhonest endeavour at a proper education of publicopinion.

The Government Avould seem so far to haveapproaclied the question with the proper

amount of calmness and discretion and I take thisopportunity to congratulate it

A aTx^-T^'i"" for the first time within a goodnumber of years for having taken a correctment Attitude, . . ,„¦ . ^ n • i , i i • i ^ , n , t

position, lue elements of disorder iiave to be putdown with a strong hand bu

in such a manner as not to encourage the growth of agreat deal more While en the one hand

the arrest and trial of offenders must be made, thepeople should be conciliated by proper regard

to their feelings. They must no more be given anyexcuse for being driven to desperation. For

File1-Tilak Trialdesperate spirits are not counted by tiiose whoactually do these acts, but there is always a large

reserve of such men in every society. And if theytake to the sort of tiling to which their eyes

have been opened by the bomb-makers — well, theGovernment cannot surely be upset, but if

bombs become anything like the order of the day, thegovernment would become impossible,

and then adieu to the peace and order of BritishRule in India. That would be precisely the

result of the sort of policy the bloodhounds of theAnglo-Indian Press advocate, the policy, for

instance, of the Amiu and the Englishman.. Myreaders would be edified to hear that the first

named paper has suggested that if the Governmentfail to behave properly (by killing all Bauga-

lees outright, I suppose) the Anglo-Indian in Indiawould be doing the proper thing to shoot down

every stray Indian that he comes across withoutwaste of any words. Were it not that t prize

peace above a great many things else, I should liketo see the game tried for a month.

Ex D 19

HINDU— May 9, P. 4, col. 1, 2.

It is, liowever, a deplorable fact that a deadly

File1-Tilak Trialengine of human destrii ction has beensuccessfully introduced into the hitherto calm andplacid atmosphere of Indian nationallife and we fear that once an evil seed has beenplanted and borne fruit, it is not in humanagency to uproot it from the soil entirely. We notethat the Anglo-Indian Press, whichis always on the prowl to bespatter with mud thepeople of the country, is frantic in itsefforts to connect all and sundry withparticipation, express or implied, in the organiza-tion of the anarchists. Many of the Anglo-Indianorgans seem or affect to think thata nest of anarchists in the country is a deadlymenace to the safety and lives of theEaropeans in the country, and that the rest of thepopulation must stand security forthem against the intended attacks of the gang. It isconveniently forgotten that ananarchist is a foe to be dreaded as occasion arises,as much by his Indian neighbour as

a European resident.... No healthy and well-orderedcommonwealth can lead to the

springing up of so noxious an organization, whosehand may turn against any man,

8t

and against wliom every man's hand will be turned.Instead, therefore, of turning itsmisguided and ucholy wrath against the othersections of the Indian population, theAngio-Iudian Press would do well to probe to thebottom the causes which have led to

File1-Tilak Trialthis unhealthy phenomenon in the Indian bodypolitic, and try to find out practical re-medies. The manner, however, in which the questionis dealt with by a section ofthe more prominent among the Anglo-Indian papers,shows that they have little regardfor fairness, considerations of fair play or truth.They want to make use of the occa-sion to smite Indians of all grades, classes andviews, and tosmother all attempts at

political reformation in the country The Pioneer hasalso the sagacity to suggest

a heroic remedy for outbreaks of this kind in thefollowing form : •' A wholesalearrest of the acknowledged terrorists in a city ordistict, coupled with an intimationthat on the next repetition of the offence ten ofthem would be shot for every lifesacrificed, would soon put down the practice, " Itis counsels such as these that haveguided the policy of the Government in the pasttowards the people of India, and ifone sows the wind, one must expect to reap theAvhirlwind.

Ex D 20

IlIXDU—May .21, P. 4, Col 5. ( Quotes Dr. RashBehari Ghose ).

Dr. Rash Behari Ghose in his welcome address to thedelegates of the CalcuttaCongress in 1906 said : ' Do not misread the signsof the time 5 do not be deluded bytheories of racial inferiority ; the choice liesbefore you between a contented people

File1-Tilak Trialproud to be the citizens of the greatest empire theworld has ever seen and anotherIreland in the East ; for I am uttering no idlethreat. — I am not speaking at randomfor I know something of the present temper of therising generation in Bengal, — per-haps another Russia. '

Ex- D 21-

HINDU— May 22, P. 6, Col. 2-3 (Quotes Nepal ChandraJioi/s letter to Pioneer).

Sir, — In your issue of the 29th August 1906refering to the assassination ofcertain persons at the Russian Premier Mr.Stolphine's villa you wrote : —

" The horror of such crimes is too great for words,and yet it has to beacknowledged, almost, that they are the only methodof fighting left to a peoplewho are at war with despotic rulers able to commandgreat military force against whichit is impossible for the unarmed populace to make astand. When the Czar dissolvedthe Duma he destroyed all hope of reform beinggained without violence. Againstbombs his armies are powerless and for that reasonbe can not rule as his forefathersdid by the sword. It becomes iiupossible for eventhe stoutest — hearted men to governfairly or strongly when every moment of their livesis spent in terror of revolting death,and they grow into craven shirkers, and sustainthemselves by a frenzy of retaliationwhich increases the conflagration they are strivingto check. Such conditions cannot

File1-Tilak Triallast. " But now that such an outrage has beenperpetrated in this country, and notthe Russiaan autocrates but the British burea cratesarc coucerned, you just ask the

88

Government to '' sustain themselves by a frenzy ofretaliation *' forgetting that it only^' increases the conflagration, they are striving tocheck. '' Evidently what in Russiayou acknowledge to be ''' the only method offighting left to a people who are at warwith despotic rulers able to cammand great militaryforces against which it is impos-sible for the imarmed populace to make a stand, ''you consider in India an " abomin-able and callous outrage, *' •• a ghastly anduseless barbarity, " and in your •' frenzy ofretaliation *' ask the Government to adoptrepressive measures and even suggest resortto lynch laws. You possibly flatter yourself withthe idea, as you have hitherto done,that human nature in India is not what it is inEurope, and therefore in India suchmeasures will not *• increase the conflagration "'and that •• such conditions may last, "

Ex D 22.

IXDIAN PATRIOT— Maij 4, P. 4, Col 2-3.

While the authorities may count upon the completesympathy and support of

File1-Tilak Trialthe country at large in regard to the measures thatthey may take to suppress danger-ous developments of this sort, the statesmen at thehead of affairs have also to bereminded of the importance of insight and sympathyat this juncture. There is nouse of blinking over the fact that thers iswidespread discontent in the counry,discontent which is the result at once ofunsatisfied aspirations and unredressedgrievances. The aspirations are perhaps confined tothe educated classes : but thesense of grievance extends over a wider area. Meresuppression of the symptoms ofdiscontent without applying the remedy at the rootwill have no permanent effect. Itis in Bengal that repression on a large scale hasbeen tried ; and it is in Bengalprecisely that the most unexpected developments haveoccurred. With each successiverepression there has been a new development We havehad prosecutions for sedi-tion, and severe punishment of boys and grown up menin connection with a varietyof oases. We have also had prohibition of publicmeetings and speeches. None ofthese things have in the least improved thesituation, but on the other hand havebrought into existence a number of desparadoes benton obtaining the crown of thoanarchist and the assassin. The far-seeing statesmanwill surely read in all this ameaning which may not be very apparent to shallowminds. Nor are the signs ofdiscontent confined to one porticular province. Allover the country, for one reasonor another, there have been similar indications. Thequestion is whether it is easier

File1-Tilak Trialto suppress them all by vigorous measures, or, whiletrying to suppress them, totake also such measures as may tend gradually todiminish the force of discontent,and thus to weaken the hands of those who are fornot removing the grievances,but for revolutionising the entire system of orderand peace.

Ex D 23

INDIAN PATRIOT— May J, P. 2, Col. 2.

Says that national movement is democratic andderives its strength from thecharacter of an alien Bureaucracy.

Ex. D 24.

INDIAN PATPdOT—May 6, P, 4, Col. ,?.

We do not doubt for a moment that, if the principleof non-interference wereuphold, if both parties agreed that India should beabove party, the only certainresult would be that India would remain separte inprinciples and methods ofGovernment; and England, encouraged to acquiesce ininjustice and unrighteousness,would lose her sense of both righteousness andjustice, She would become incapableof acting towards her dependency in accordance withher traditions and her instincts,and in course of time she would lose her title as ai-ighteous and freedom-lovingnation, and finally she would begin to cherish at

File1-Tilak Trialhome those very principles andmethods which she permits abroad. Despotism isalways demoralising to thosewho practise it ; it must be as much demoralising toan organised tody as it is to anation. The English nation can no more escape thedemoralisation than an Eng-lish official. The bureaucracy in India has beenreared in the atmosphere of despo-tism, and the only hindrance to its continuousdevelopment is the change of theViceroy every five years and the notice that istaken of official acts in Parlia-ment. But for the constant fear of English publicopinion, we should have had theworst form of despotism. It is the force of Englishpublic opinion that enforcesadherence to forms of law, and to the generalprinciples of freedom and justice.When Lord Curzon asked the English people to "•'trust the man on the spot, " he didnot surely mean that the man on the spot should beleft to modify the principles andtraditions of British rule just as he likes. Noservant of the Crown has the right toretard or subvert those principles and traditionswhich are the distinguishing featuresof British rule. It is possible and necessary toleave certain latitude to authorities onthe spot. But it is not this kind of latitude alonethat the bureaucracy wants. It willbe satisfied with nothing less than complete powerto pervert the English principles offreedom and justice to an oriental polity which theyhave come to prefer.

File1-Tilak TrialEx. D 25.

INDIAN PATRIOT—May 14, P. 2, Col. US.

Repression will kindle the flame of animosity andhatred rather thnn Eoothethe feelings.

Ex D 26

INDIAN PATRIOT—May 15, P. 4, col, 1, 2.

Their chief concern is to gee the country governedin the way they like ; and itis not always possible to have the country sogoverned when there is the persis-tent voice of criticism both from the Indian Pressand the platform. The Anglo-IndianTress is perfectly satisfied with the existingadministrative arrangements ; and it doesnot want any change to be effected except withregard to the freedom which is nowallowed to the people, Avhile Indians attach veryhigh value to the only means they12

90

Lave of ueutralisiug the evil of autoci-acy. Thosewho look a little beneath the surface willeasily see the meaning of these two different andmutually antagonistic attitudes. Themeaning, so far as the Anglo-Indian is concerned^ wehave indicated ; and we will ex-

File1-Tilak Trialplain it as bearing on the attitude of the Indians.The latter is not satisfied with theadministration as it exists ; he wants changes to beintroduced suited to his needs andconditions. And he knows that agitation is theessence of progressive reform underthe British Government. No great reform has anywherebeen effected Avithin theBritish Empire except with the help of agitationcarried on persistently for a longperiod ; and the press and the platform constitutethe main machinery of agitation.They are at once a safeguard against injustice andoppression, and the means of in-fluencing opinion in favour of reform and progress.Most Indians think that theGovernment in India must be reformed according tothe changing needs of the times^and that it is only when it is reformed according tothe enlightened sense and theintelligent desire of the people that it will beproductive of the best benefit. Theone thing to be ever borne in mind is that theaverage Britisher never believes ingrievances unless there is something to evidence itsexistence. If there is no agitation,he takes it that the people accept everything thatis proposed for them. Measure aftermeasure has been passed by the Government on thisassumption regardless of protestsmade by the representatives of the people. Thenecessity for deferring to publicopinion being admitted as a matter of public policy,the next step is to evade doing soby denying the existence of any opinion opposed to aparticular course. When thereis no criticism and no agitation, the inference isvery satisfactory ; but when there is

File1-Tilak Trialagitation and noise, then the idea is that it is allthe work of mischief-makers. Thereis a cetain impossibility in reconciling honestywith hypocrisy ; and it is this impossi-bility that necessitates so much inconsistency inthe profession of even responsiblemen. The people have been long taught that unlessthey make the masses movewith them, they would not be seriously listened to,bnt when the masses aremoved, those who move them are charged with creating'^ disaffection." To the peopleat large, the freedom of speech and the freedom ofthe press are invaluable boons, inreturn for which they would give up many otherthings. They know that without suchfreedom it is impossible to keep an alienbureaucracy straight. Imagine the resultif the District official is supported by the localGovernment, the local Governmentby the government of India, and both by theSecretary of state, in the honest belief,no doubt, that all of them are right, and thepeople, injured or affected have noteven the means of making a noise, and we can easilyimagine the result. What canbe more conducive to the development of the worstform of despotic government inIndia ? What can be better calculated to enslave apeople than a system of autocraticGovernment free from constitutional restraints ofall kinds, and absolutely protectedagainst exposure and criticism ?

Ex. D 27.

MADRAS STANDAHD-^May 4, P. 4, Col. 3.

File1-Tilak TrialWe hope that the authorities in Bengal will keeptheir heads cool and will not'•' govern in anger. '' But unhappy Bengal must alsocome in for sympathy. ForOver two years it has known no rest, has had nofreedom from the worries consequent

91

on the feeling against the partition. We can wellimagine that what has now beenbrought to light has deepened the confusion. In theface of all that has happened it isnot improbable that measures for the improvement ofthe Province will not for a timeat any rate be vigorously prosecuted. In the stateof panic in which it linds itself andwith the Anglo-Indian press inciting the authoritiesto the sternest repressive action,it is likely that the energies of the Governmentwill be devoted to the adoption of theseverest measures in the name of peace and order.The authors of the disorder arecomparatively few in number. But their delinquencyand dark deeds are likely tobring troubles innumerable to the entire populationwhose loyalty and law-abiding natureare proverbial. What Bengal wants is rest. How isrest to come from a situation sograve is the question that will be asked. If,however, the Bengal Government and theGovernment of India see through the whole affair anddeclare that the law-breakers area small minority for whom no sympathy whatever isfelt and that if the law is left totake its own course without having recourse to any

File1-Tilak Trialstringent executive or legislativeaction^ the excitement will abate itself.

Ex D 28

MADRAS STANDARD— May 6, P. 4, Col 3.

If honesty in journalism is not a lost virtue theTimes should not forget at thismoment Lord Ourzon, the real author of all thepresent unrest in India. Beno-al wasa peaceful Province three or four years ago. Sincethe partition which was effected inthe teeth of the opposition of the people it hasbecome a seething mass of discontent.But all the time that Lord Curzon was in India theTimes and the Anglo-Indian pressin general have been inciting and encouraging him onin his career of folly. HisLordship is now at home posing as a great authorityon Indian affairs. He is now aleader of his party hoping, apparently, to becomePrime Minister of England. But inIndia the people are reaping the fruit of hisregime, and Lords Morley and Minto havehad no rest since they came into their respectiveoffice. In India itself the Anglo-Indian press, with a few exceptions, have begun acampaign of vilification as if thepeople of India had anything to do with therevolutionaries in Bengal. Bnt we sin-cerely hope that better counsel will prevail. Letthe law-breakers be dealt withaccording to law. But no action should be taken theeffect of which will be to retardprogress and injure permanantly the interests of the

File1-Tilak Trialpeople at large.

Ex D 29

PUX.IABEE—Ma;/ 0, P. -7, Cnl. /.

It is a suggestive commentary on the Inllnences ofEuropean methods inIndia tc find that it should have converted a cerainsection of the Hower of theIndian population into sycophants or anarchists —mercenary agents of an alien Govern-ment, or the ferocious harbingers of such deadlyideas as lead to dastardly deedslike the one lately committed at Muzaft'arpore. Maywe ask the Brsti-^h statesmento ponder, if there is anything inherent in theirsystem of Government in Indiawhich crushes the spirit of manliness and encouragesinstead thereof either a spirit

92

of abjoot depondenco or ono of cowardliness : Whysliould there ho a senee of help-lessness which drives people to these undesirableextremes, either on the side ofthe Government or against it r" It is just these twotypes which are at present attra-cting attention in India, wo mean the sycophant orthe bomb-thrower. There arehighly educated men in the ranks of both — men whocould be the pride of theircountry and ornaments of their societ}- if theycould command a free scope for theproper employment of those talents with which nature

File1-Tilak Trialhas gifted them and educationhas fitted them. Surely there must be somethingabnormal and unnatural in thesocial conditions of India under which men of rareparts and good social environ-ments .'^houM either take to mercenary sycophancy orblood-thirsty anarchism.

Ex. D 30.

TRTBIWE—Mdy 10, F. 4, Col 1, 2.

Uut at the same time we are not very much impressedwith the theory that theirmental aberrations have been due to the unbridledlicense of the Bengalee vernacularpress. We maintain our view that in this matter anylegislation for gagging the pressmay perhaps prove even a worse remedy than thedisease and that in such matterthe thino- needful can be best done by theauthorities and the leaders of the people co-operating towards the right solution. But we mustpoint out that it wiU not do to layhold merely at one end of the wedge. It is no usepouring your vials of wrath upon dis-reputable sheets in the vernacular press whileletting the Anglo-Indian fire-eaters likethe Aaian scot free. It may be said that the lattersheet has not prompted any personto commit any violence. That maybe so but still ithas to be admitted that the red-hotextremist paper is the natural counter -part of thefire-eating Anglo-Indian Journal fromwhich it derives its cue. And if any measure istaken against the one, it must fairlyand squarely apply against the other, although forourselves, we are of opinion that

File1-Tilak Trialthis is a matter where tlie leaders of the public inboth communities shoiild co-operatewith the Crovernraent in putting a stop to thisfire-eating business.

Ex D 31

PAT RIKA— Mail 0, P. U, Col. 1, 'J.

The Anglo-Indian papers, we are surprised to find,are acting the part of anenemy and not a friend. By their inflamatory andmalignant writing they are try-ing to poison the minds of the Government againstthe people of the country. Forinstance, the " Statesman '' which owes its birthand growth to Indian money andIndian patronage, and daily eats Indian salt, thusseeks to connect the Mozufferpuroutrage with Indian Nationalism : — " The terribleoutrage perpetrated at Mozufferpurand the revelation of a wide-spread criminalconspiracy to which it has led, are indi-cations only too plain that Indian Nationalism hasentered upon a new and portentousphase, the ultimate significance of which it isimpossible at present to guage. Since thepartition of Bengal, the crowning folly of LordCurzon's regime, a different spirit hasmanifested itself, whose weapons are apparently tobe bombs and dynamite. " Theabove is a gross distortion of facts, and its soleobject is to rouse the worst passions of

93

File1-Tilak TrialGovernment against the rising national feeling ofthe Indians, It is a big lie to saythat bombs and dynamite are the weapons of those whohave agitated and are yetagitating — against the partition measure. If tensand hundreds of thousands of anti-partitionists had turned Fenians and resorted toinfernal machines, the country wouldhave presented quite a different aspect. As everybody knows, what they did whenBengal was partitioned was simply to hold thousandsof public meetings and adoptresolutions praying for justice. But their prayerwas treated with contempt. It wasthen that they sought to give up begging and rely ontheir own resources, as far asthat was possible, in order to improve theireconomic and domestic condition. Theywould not have abandoned the mendicant policy if therulers liad shown them someconsideration ; but they trampled the sentiments andviews of a whole nation underfoot, and left the latter no alternative but topreach and practise, to some extent, self-reliance as regards economic and domestic matters Wetrust, responsible rulers will

not be influenced by such writings. In the cause ofpeace and order, they must, ofcourse, take all necessary measures, but they willserve no useful purpose by givingplay to their tiger qualities, because of the foulacts of some irresponsible Indian youths.The ''Statesman" very pertinently characteries thepartition of Bengal as<>the crowningfolly of Lord Carzon's regime." There is no doubtthat it is measures like the Partiti-tion of Bengal and severities which rendered Mr.

File1-Tilak TrialKingford's criminal administration inCalcutta so conspicuous, which unhinge the minds ofa certain class of people and impelthem to commit dreadful things. One of the bestmeans to prevent such dastardly deedsis, therefore, for the Government and its officersto avoid measures and acts which out-rage public opinion and tend to give birth tofanaticism.

Ex D32

PJTRIKA—May G, P. 5, Col. 1, 2.

The " Hindoo Patriot, " the organ of the BritishIndian Association, makesgome excellent suggestions in connection with thisaffair. Our contemporary says ; —

'*' But coolly discussed, the recent events wouldpoint to the urgency of findingout the root-causes of the turbulent spirit and tothe advisability of removing themwithout delay. To regret or condemn, or to give wayto passion and angry fee-lings is somewhat conventional. The pratical andstatesman-like course is to tacklethe incidents in the right spirit and clear up themisunderstandings and misgivingson which the anarchist ideas are feeding. The properremedy for the nihilist spiritis a popular form of Government — both being oftenassumed to be foreign to thegenius of the people of this country — for which thedemand is strong and widespread.While it is necessary that the perpetrators of theoutrage should be exemplarily dealtwith, according to the law, it is hoped that the

File1-Tilak Trialreforming hand will not be arrested,but will courageously complete what it has taken upand move faster. "' With everydeference to the " Empire '', which does not likethe above sentences, vv-e thinkthe '' Hindoo Patriot "' has done a public service,by bringing this aspect of thesituation prominently to the notice of theGovernment while yet the outrage isquite fresh in the minds of all. For, theauthorities may forget all about it as soonas the culprit has been punished. The case hascertainly been very clearly put by

04

the '•' Hindoo Patriot ". Condemn the dastardly deedas indignantly as you can ;mete out condign punishment to the culprit accordingto law ; but the first dutyof Government is to fmger the real plague-spot andremove it with a strong hand.It is now admitted on all hands, offlcial andnon-ofllclal, that the prevaling dis-countent in the country owes its origin to thepartition of Bengal and some othermeasures of the Carzon Government. Mr. Morley, orrather Lord Morley ofBlackburn, instead of removing it, has fostered itsgrowth by introducing or sanc-tioning other repressive measures. The Government of>Sir Andrew Fraser again notonly regarded with indifference, the draconianseverity which marked the administra-tion of criminal justice by Mr. Kingsford, butincreased his pay, though he had been

File1-Tilak Trialshocking the susceptibilities of humanity— nay, ofMr. Morley himself — by awardinghrutal punishment to a number of boys belonging torespectable families, merely onpolitical grounds. Where is the wonder that bybrooding upon these matters andreading Nihilist literature, some young men wouldget their mind so unhinged as to befired with the ambition of imitating the devilishexamples of their Nihilist •' Gurus ''in Europe f The best policy of Government is togovern the eountry in such a way asnot to give any opportunity to Indian youths toconvert themselves into fanatics andcommit blood-curdling acts.

Ex. D 33.

PATRIKA—Mrnj 7, P. -5, C'nl 1.

By ••respectable people" we mean those who have astake in the country. Thesemen unless their minds have been thoroughlyunhinged, can have nothing to do with acampaign of destruction which is bound to be asdisastrous to themselves as to thoseagainst whom the same may be directod. If disorderand lawlessness are established inthe country by a body of anarchists, who will suffermore than these very respectablepeople ? It is also evident that, in order to makebombs and carry on missionary worklarge funds are not required. A few thousand rupeeswould be sufficient to purchase a

File1-Tilak Triallarge number of revolvers and manufacture a goodmany bombs. The money-question,on which the Chowringhi paper builds its theory, hasthus no bearing on the Indianjanarchist movement.

Ex- D 34.

BENGALEE— June IS. P. S. Col 1.

Sir Harvey Adamson was particularly clear andexplicit in his pronouncement.'' We have " said he, '•' striking examples of howthey ( newspapers of tlie type of theYugantar ) '' have converted the timid Bangali intothe fanatical (jhad and they are notto be ignored. The difference between the East andthe West in this respect is thedifferenco between dropping a lighted match on stonefloor and dropping it in apowder magazine.'' It is recognized on all handsthat the character of the Bengalee hasundergone a great change. Even Sir Charles Elliott,wedded to the old world views, is

95

constrained to admit that there must be areconstruction of English ideas with regard tothe 3ubmissiveness of the Bengalee. What then hasbrought about this strange trans-formation ? The inflammatory writings of a few

File1-Tilak Trialvernacular newspapers have notconverted the timid Bengali into the fanaticalGhazi. The inflammatory writings (whichwe strongly condemn) are the product of theself-same political conditions which havecreated the Bengalee Ghazis. If these politicalconditions did not exist, those writingswould not have appeared ; and if they did, nobodywould have paid the smallest atten-tion to them and no press law would have beennecessary. For more than half thelife-time of a generation, a reactionary policy hasbeen in the ascendant ; public grie-vance upon grievance has been piled ; the voice ofpublic opinion has been treated withopen contumely; the faith of the people inconstitutional agitation has been subjected tothe severest strain, and when at last the expectedhour of relief came by the installationof a Liberal Government in power, salvation was notfound. Have we not here acondition of things calculated profoundly to stirthe popular mind and drive the mostexcitable to desperate and foolish measures, toviolent writings and to deeds still moreviolent and foolish ? This is the legitimateexplanation of the change in that aspect ofthe national character which we are now considering.Do not lay the responsibilityupon the wrong shoulders.

Ex D 35.

BENGALEE^May 20, P. J, Col. 1,2,3.

Now it is a curious fact that the inflammatorywritings of certain Indianperiodicals have received condign punishment,

File1-Tilak Trialwhereas certain Anglo-Indian papers,despite their inflammatory tone at a crisis of thenation's affairs have escaped unpuni-shed. To our mind there are two ways of stirring upsedition, one by preachingviolence to the people, another by preachingviolence against the people. If it be true,as we are so often told, that certain Indianjournals are determined to embitter raceagainst race, it is certainly time for Englishmen toconsider if there be nothing intheir own actions and in the utterances of certainof their press, calculated to cause apermanent estrangement between race and race. Ifthere be anti-racial feelings amongthe Indians, they have learnt them from people whoconsider themselves theirbetters. All the schemes of the Government wiU cometo nothing if the supercillious andinsolent tone adopted by certain Englishmen towardsIndians is allowed to gounpunished. All its measures of reform will beworthless, unless it can control theactions and utterances of those who, coming from thesame race as itself, do and saythings utterly repugnant to the spirit of the race.It is time for the Government, if weare to have any real measure of peace, prosperity orreform, any real trust between thepeople of India and its governors, to punish notonly the delinquencies of Indians, butalso the delinquencies of Anglo-Indians andAnglo-Indian journals which have donemuch to bring about the present state of afEairs.

Ex D 36.

PAT RIKA— May SI. P. S, Col. 2, 4.

File1-Tilak Trial

Attacks bureaucracy and says that they are all Kingsin India.

96

ExD37.

INDIAN SPECTATOR— May 0, P. S61, 565.

And what shall we say about the innocent victims ofthe diabolical crime atMuzaffarpur ? We always deprecate the habit ofimporting into a discussion or de-nunciation of such crimes any consideration whichmay savour of racial animus. It isas unreasonable to call upon the whole population ofIndia to put on sackcloth andashes for the crimes of a few dynamiters in Bengal,as it is to ask the whole Anglo-Indian community to expiate for the indifference ofa European soldier for the life of acooly, or the assault upon an Indian lady by a whiterascal. But there is a differencebetween crimes which are the offspring of pureselfishness, and crimes which are pro-fessedly undertaken in the interests of a larger orsmaller class of a beneficiaries. Thedynamiters of Bengal imagine that they are doing aservice to their country, andhence it may, not unreasonably, be expected by somethat the intended, but unwilling,beneficiaries of the crimes would do more thanexpress their profound sympathy for thevictims of the outrage. The funeral of the twoladies is said to have been attended by

File1-Tilak TrialNatives as well as Europeans. The reason, perhaps,was not only that Mr. Kennedyis popular with the Native community of the place,but also that that communitywished to disclaim all sympathy with the excesses ofthe criminals. Nothing like amovement seems to be on foot as yet to condemn theconspiracy detected by the police.Some people seem to have suspected that bombs wereon their way to Poona and toTuticorin simultaneously with their despatch toMuzaftarpur. Heaven be praised if thefriendly gifts of the Bengali manufacturers, to beused in the up-to-date politicalKindergarten, have not reached their destination, orhave deteriorated during the

journey We must be slow, on such an occasion, toaccept the single version of

this or that party. The reports alleged to have beenmade by the Police, and the alle-gations of certain excited Anglo-Indian writers,need to be carefully sifted. The autho-rities and the Courts will doubtless do this. But wefeel constrained to say, at thevery threshold of the inquiry, that the theory of awidespread conspiracy, shared in bywell known and respectable citizens, seemsuntenable. Nor can we get over the fearthat the innocent many will suffer with the guiltyfew, if the local Police are allowed tohave their own way in the investigations that mustfollow. The situation is too seriousto need the importation of official prejudice orracial passion. How to improve it is thequestion of prime importance for the statesman. Ashinted above, this can be best done

File1-Tilak Trialby the authorities and the natural leaders of theprovince co-operating towards theright solution. If an untoward development of thesituation embarrasses the Govern-ment, it will also prove disastrous to the permanentinterests of the community itself.The Bengalis need settling down — to become true tothemselves and their traditions oflove of peace and reverence for authority. Whoeverseduces them from loyalty tothese traditions is the worst enemy, not only of thepeople of Bengal, but of the wholecountry. The love of independence is innate inmankind, and the literature of theWest and political agitation within the country areonly influences which favour thedevelopment of that aspiration into seditiousconspiracies. The reported discovery ofRussian literature with the Calcutta seditionistswas scarcely expected. It cannot besuggested that Russian spies have been at work onthe north-west frontier and in

9^7

Bengal ; the importation of Russian literature mustbe attributed to the scientificmethods which educated men have been taught to applyto all their undertakings.

Ex D 38.

INDIAN SPECTATOR— May 16, P. 381, Col 1-2.^ Playjally deah with thesituation.

File1-Tilak Trialyhe chemistry of the weapons with which thesedeluded ''•' saviours of the coun-try " are fighting their " battles " is itself someproof of imitation ; but the imitationis not all of the West. Portions of the confessionscannot fail to convince those whohave read Bakim Ohunder Chatterji's Anandamathathat, while the physical weaponsare borrowed from the last, the spirit comes fromthe graves of the Sanyansi rebelswhose war-cry '' Bande Mataram '*' plays such aprominent part in modern politics.The cry itself is innocent, and Sir Andrew Fraseronce responded to it in the street byrespectfully taking off his hat. But the songexpresses a faith in the possibility ofthe millions of doughty arms devoted to the serviceof the Motherland driving outforeign rulers. The song was directed againstMuhammadans by the Sanyasis of old 5it must be suggestive of a different class offoreigners to the young political Sanyasisof to-dav.

Ex D 39

GUJRATHI—May 17, P. 707, Col 1, 2, 5; P. 70-5, Col2, i'; P. 70G, Col 1, 2, S.

Investigates into the causes of unrest and holdsGovernment responsible for thesame.

Ex. D 40

GUJRATHI—May SI, P. 779, Col 1: P. 777, Col 1. 2: P.775, Col 1. 2, 3.Charges Government and Anglo-Indian Papers with

File1-Tilak Trialsowing seeds of discontent.

Ex- D 41.

GUJ RAT II I— June 14, P. 858, Col 2.

A humourous slcit on God Bomb. Says : — ' Bomb willmake his name perma-nent if he will bring in political reforms.'

Ex. D 42

INDU PRAKASH-May 5. p. 7, Col. 2-3. Says thatTerroristmovements arc the produrt of particiilar liiuls ofrula.

îHTT^^^ ^^^r w-^w. 7Tr?Tf=^r 3?^^^ ^:t^^^ 'TO^r,'Tiî^rp^^r ^^rt^î5t^ r[^K fi?rT?r. k^tj^mK^î g9?T^rT?«r?r^T^^r^^^Tirr 3i:?r^^r \\m a^r'Trf^î^^ M\4A'PBAKASH—Jiuie 7, p. 2, col. S, 4, 5.f^TT^r JfT^T 3Tn^ ?:r^=^ ^", ^^Tpf 3t^^ î î^. "im^?t^ ^'"'jf ^M^ 3^|.

3Tc5T^ l+.rM+ Hf|^ 'FT'l^PTJf ^^:5fr^ mTP\ 'imW\R^3Tr|. ^^TF^^r, ^rfm^TTsjiftr?:^T^, ^TT^^^ ^JFITT, 3T&percnt; 3T^^ T^T^ ^T^^ 3?^>rTTf ?T ^Tî^Frr ^T^^TT^' SPT?^ &percnt;^r,

qrg ?^rqT?35 rs? |j mj'w ^fa ^fi. ^^MieS 3FTrrtTFffo;: ^^ 3T[|, prt^^Rr f^TiîifTir^ ^t 5f^^'^T 3iif , ?TFTr srrT^rrJf ^ ^Tf^rqirptf^^r^ ^f^, | 3ti&percnt;fî^ ^^^q- 3Tr? 5

File1-Tilak Trial

TTJ ?^ f^^ 37H^T ?TTfFTT +'"^1^ ^^^ ^ fJcTf rTTÎf^T 'TT+'J^Kf ?TT^' HtW ^f-

100

Ex D 48

CHIKITSAK — May 27. p. 3, col. 3. Says, thatresponsible lea-(lers of the people loarned Govei'nment that theyoung generation icas getfiftgout of hand ; (>nt Uovernment did not heed thelearning.

f^ sr^^qr iTJT:^Hr=q'i î^ ^rpr 3T^t pt^ air^rr.^îjîF n^^'k ^^ô&i-H

^R ^^ q" \^r{^^ ^W ^ 'iW^^^p ^?^ff? ^TîTt^r PTir^TTR^TtT ^r??^, q- r-^rT^JT^pT STFTrT-

==^ ^':t 37?^r^F ^f^ ^R7 'iTw "T^ jj^^rr ^^r^r^^^t^'frmMr ^tt^pt^ ^#sr fî\m. 3TTT^ "'^' ^rft^^ # m^j ?roT^ ^r r?^^yr&percnt;^ -iiH^ ^t^cT^. tot ?Trfr 5^=^ n^Riippn^r 'îTPT ^rJT'^ ^wr 5ft?j, qr hiWrt r^rKf jt^3T^q^^ ^r^r 37rtrr.

Ex. D 48A

CHIKITSAK.— May 13, p. 2, Col. L 2. CallsAnglo-Indianjyapers the pet-dogs of Government.

jT^^r^q-'-^^r &percnt;^ ^^qr'^'- q- r^r HFrrrrJf^^rwr^ 3tt&percnt;?^ ^w-^^ nif Ffr ti^.+KKr. ?i^fN"

File1-Tilak Trial^-^f=^f. T^ T&percnt;^Fr^5E?Tr HiiN+.HfHr ^ \^'^\K\^\^s^ ^^r tttI^ 3^T>r. wm^ ^ti&percnt; f&percnt;

ffTf ?^^^^ T^T: ^fTTof ^^ 3TrT=^ q"?^!^ U^ JTîyJrlT^ 3Tr>T.

Ex D 48B

CHIKITSAK A— May 20, p. 2, col. 1. AttacksAnglo-Indianpre.'^s as idiotic relations on the wife\'i side (^1155^ ) of Government, idtioare cruel, deecitfuf silly, vain, icorthless, andhiding behind the tail ofImperial lion.

w^m^' ^F:^rrrR5 ^T^r?T^r ^^^^r^^'^r -mzm m. rsrpr^Tnryiî^^j^^

\ ^TT??^ îr >=q7^, ^^^ ^, ^&percnt; 'f?T rra^ >TR^,^H Tifq- rT^ iT^TR ft^T, 3# S^T^-

^Tî^r ?m^qT ^n'^-^fTR^^ m^ w^ 3^r|. ^îj^r^r ^kpRf^ ) In cases of emergency or in cases where thepurposes of tlie applicationmight be defeated by delay, the Magistrate may, onor after the making of ;i condi-tional order under sub-section (1), make a furtherorder ex prate for the attachmentof the printing press or other property referred toin the conditional order. (4) If anvperson concerned appears and shows cause against theconditional order the Magistrateshall take evidence, whether in support of or inopposition to such order, in mannerprovided in section 3.3G of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1898. (5) If the Magistrate

File1-Tilak Trialis satisfied that the news paper contains matter ofthe nature specified in sub-section(1). he snail make the cjnditional order offorfeitare abssolute in respect of suchproperty as he may find to be within terms of thesaid sub-seetion. (6) -If theMagistrate is not to satisfied, he shall set asidethe conditional order of forfeitureand the order of attachment, if any.

4. Power to seize.— (1) The Magistrate may bywarrant empower any Police-officer not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector toseize and detain any property orderedto be attacked under section 3, sub.section (3), orto seize and carry away any propertyordered to be forfeited under section 3 sub section(5), wherever found and to enterupon and search for such property in any premises—(a) where the newspaper specifiedin such warrant is printed, or published or (b)where any siicli property may be ormay be reasonably suspected to be, or (c) where anycopy of such newspaper is kept forsale, distribution, publication or public exhibitionor reasonably suspected to be sokept. (2) Every warrant issued under sub-sec. (1) sofar as it relates to a search shallbe executed in manner provided for the execution ofsearch warrants by the Code ofCriminal Procedure 1898.

5. Appeal. — Any person concerned who has appearedand shown cause againsta conditional order of forfeiture may appeal to theHigh Court within fifteen days fromthe date when such orders is made absohite,

File1-Tilak TrialG. Bar of Other Proceedings. — Save as proided insection 5, no order dulymade by a Magistrate under section 3 shall be calledin question in any C^urt.

7. PoAVER TO Anxull Declaration Under Press AndRecistratidn ofBooks Act, 1867. — Where an order of forfeiture hasbeen made absolute in relationto any newspaper the Local Government may, bynotification in the local officialGazette, annul any declaration made by the printeror publisher of such newspaperunder the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1807,and may by such notific-atiouprohibit any further declaration being made orsubscribed imder the said Act in res-pect of the said newspaper, or of any newspaperuntil it is the same in substance as thesaid newspaper,until such prohibition be withdrawn.

8. Penalty. — Any person who prints or publishes anynewspaper specified inany prohibition notified under sectiou 7 during thecotinuance of that prohibitionshall be liable, on conviction, to the penaltiesprescribed by section 15 of the Press andRegistration of Books Act; 1867,

116

Ex. D 63

File1-Tilak Trial

GAZETTE OF INDIA— June 13, P. 142, Col. 2,

Extract from Hon. Syed Maliomad's speech onExplossive Act quotting " Ethicsof Dpiamite " from '' Contemporary Review " — Thisis also the view taken by manythoughtful men in England. Writing on the Ethics ofDynamite in the ContemporaryReview in 1894 the Hon'ble Mr. Axibern Herbertadmirably summed up the situation inthe following words : — If the only effect upon usof the presence of the dynamiter in ourmidst is to make us multiply punishments, inventrestrictions, increase the number of ourofficial spies, forbid public meetings, interferewith the press, put up gratings, as in onecoimtry they propose to do. in our House of Commons,scrutinise visitors under officialmiscroscopes,request them as at Vienna and I thinknow at Paris, also to be good enoughto leave their great coats in the vestibules, if weare in a word^ to trust to machinery toharden our hearts and simply to meet force withforce, always irritating, always clumsyand in the end fruitless, then I venture to prophesythat there lies beforeus a bitter and an evil time. We may be quite surethat force users will be forcel)egetters. The passions of men will rise higher andhigher and the authorised and un-authorised Governments — the Government of themajority and of written laws, theGovernment of the minority and dATiamite — willenter upon their desperate struggle ofwhich no liviiig man can read the end. In one way,and only one way, can the dyna-miter be permanently disarmed by abandoning in

File1-Tilak Trialalmost all directions our force andmachinery, and accustoming the people to believe inthe blessed weapon of reason, per-suasion and voluntary service.

THE ORIENTAL REVIEW— J uh/ 1, P. 239, col 1, 2,Quotlny the letter ofthe Calcutta correspondent of the "¦Morning Leader""

No sane person will countenance this propaganda ofviolence, for a moment ; butit might have been foreseen, as, in fact, it hasbeen foreseen, by everyone who has readhistory. If anything ig responsible for it, it isthe fatuous policy of the Governmentand the Yellow Press in England which has hounded iton to one act of repression afteranother. The Government has deliberately sat on allthe safety-valves, an advicewhich can be only characterised as criminal ; andnow that an explosion has takenplace, it is surprised and shocked, and isconsidering the advisabilitj- of sitting on themagain tighter than ever. I daresay it will do so,and I venture to predict that theeffect will only be to aggravate the situation. Theone hope lies in the natural gentle-ness of the Indian character, which may well be saidto have endured all things. Nowthat the Bengalees, who are the gentlest of all theIndian races, have taken to dyna-mite, it is at least probable that the other raceswill not be less drastic in theirmethods. The bomb-thrower having establishedhimself, has come to stay, and the

File1-Tilak Trialfirst thing the Government has got to make up itsmind to is that rocky fact. All thedeportations and Press prosecutions in the worldwill not dislodge him; they will onlyintensify his malignant activity. On the other hand,it must be frankly recognised thatdisplay of moderation by the Government, and noconcession short of a complete Britishexodus, will now get rid of him, on the '' killingby kindness " principle. Such is theupshot of three years of repression. There was nomore loyal people th an the Indianpeople ten years ago. Lord Curzon and Lord Mintobetween them have managed tosquander this rich heritage, until to-day thedynamiter only puts into practice whatpractically every Indian feels inclined to preach.

Ex. D 05*

CONTEMPORARY REVIEW,~May 1S94, p. 578 and omoards.—Article on Ethics of Dynamite.

117

Ex D 66

KESARI — Jtme 16, P. 4, Col. 3. — Discuases thedefinition of ^ exjjlosives.'

3Tf|. ^ ^r^^TRT t|^t 'iwr 37[| #, ^[ST^r^jzqrpq[;2;3T q?: '^]-^\ ^^^ -^^^m ?^r»miV^mpT ^T^rqRff ?riq&percnt;^ 3T'^qr ^r 37^17 wî'îrrr?î??; -iTq-^nrr -q^TcrrTfr 't?^^ si^ ?f?Trr^RT ?^t^ ^^^^ RT^ s^rfr-, JTT ?^--?TT ^nf=t ^m\^'^?Rr frqt ^r =t iifr. ?#='?qT ^frpr^^Tsr-

File1-Tilak TrialJTT^ 3T^TT 3Tq-^rqT5Fr qrif^ irrrr^'r ^^^ RT^r \^J^?r ?t5t?^T5^' ^r ^^r î^^r ^^rt ^fhot

^RTJTpqr W'TT JT^RT &percnt;5?t 3T^JTT^ qtfe^T^Tfrtq^?^', '^^^t qT?^'^ ?r&percnt;^' ^^ ^??^H ?r#p:

^?:r^cr[ ^pr^rif^ f^fp'^T^ ^^^fi^ -iT^^^crr&percnt;^ 3:if|. i^w^^^ ^=1" ^ î'" ?Tf ^îpt^fr-irtHrf&percnt;H^w ^r ^^?:r ^^^ ^[^^îtI Tt^f^rr '^ îrT'^&percnt;^ ^^t^: *^Cr ?t^ ^s-^^ît ît^^r qf^^Tr'smr^r 5T|?r^ 3t^^^t: ^^^ 3ti&percnt;, 3#j^ûr'^^Tr^r ^^^ ^rff. ^¦'q^^sf ^Tif #, p^^ffwî^r^-

^5PT J^ôT^T ?r^^^ ^^TTfr ! q"{5 qr^^^^ tThft ?t^^^t ^r ""^^^^ tt^t ^r^r trrrr ^f] ?^?fr^qt^sq-f ^îTT^^^ qr^q^r^qr ^fff ?r^T?T^t^1 ?f^?t=q-^''^^r Ir^rc'^'r ?r?rt. ^qr^Jrw T^T^rf^ro?Tpo'&percnt;Fr ^rra^?: ^^h^ ^-^ ^t&percnt;c7,^rr&percnt;=^ ^&percnt; r{T ^T^m^sr ct^t'' ^f^^wc^rn'JTR îw^ t&percnt;^^nr ^rFTR- HfT^r ^^k 'tt^t q^ ôtf^f ^mt 3T'^^ ^ft^^^^^rp T^r'4^'7^ pr^-riir ^î?n^.RrTf ^^crrrrr j^T r&percnt;qT ^^m 3t^^ iTT?rr ^f^r^^r?:; ^ht^^t &percnt;^^r 3if|; 3Tn&percnt; a^îrsr^T^r^^FJnTTft q^^4 ??TT^?TT r^^^tcT -m^ F^T^T l^^c?^^lr&percnt;^ f&percnt;^T iTTr&percnt;^^ ^m \i^

Ex D 67.

MAHRATTA—lst September 1907 P. 411-2.

In 1734 Cosby was the Governor of New York,appointed by the British Crown.He had purposed a high-handed and tyrannical policysubversive of those principles of

File1-Tilak Trialliberty for which, even at that early date, thepeople of New York had long contended,and his acts were receiving keen and unsparingsatarical treatment in one of the twoNew York public prints, the TFee/i/?/ /o?<;v/r.'/.On November 17th Peter Zenger, thepublisher of that paper, was arrested, charged withhaving published seditious libels,thrown into prison, and deuied the use of paper, penand ink. His friends procured awrit of Haheus Corpus, but being unable to furnishthe extravagant bail demanded —some 7,000 Rupees — ( the ways of tyranny have beenthe same in all ages and in allparts of the earth ) — the efforts in his behalfwere for the time unavailing. He. how-ever, continued to edit his paper, giving directionsto his assistants through chinks inthe door of his place of continement. The grand Juryhaving refused to lind an indict-ment, the attorney general, on the 23th of Jamiary1735, adopted the star-chamberprocedure of filing an information without anindictment, chargiug Zenger with false,scandalous, seditions and malicious libel. Smith andAlexander, eminent barristers,were retained as his counsel. They began by takingexception to the commissions ofChief Justice DeLansy and Judge Philipse of theCourt, because these commissions randuring the pleasure of the Crown, instead of duringgood behavior, the usual formu-lase always insisted on by the American Colonies,and had been granted by the Governorwithout the advice or consent of his Council. TheCourt refused to entertain the plea.

File1-Tilak Trial

118

and to punish the audacity of Counsel for offeringit, ordered their names to be struckfrom the list of barristers. As there were at thattime but three lawyers of eminencein New York, one of these being already in theretainer of the Government for the caseZenger was left destitute of any able counsel. Thiswas preuisely what the court hadforeseen and desired. Determined to thwart thisingeniously concerted intrigue.Zenger s friends secretly engaged the services ofthe venerable Andrew Hamilton ofPJiiladelphia. then eighty years of age, but in fullpossession of his faculties, and oneof the most distinguished barristers of the day.Hamilton was imbued with theprinciijles that were fast springing up in America,and had shown himself earnest inopposing the despotic tyranny which England wasbeginning ojienly to exert over hercolonial possessions. A more able or eloquentadvocate could hardly havebeen found and the scheme, which had been designedby the enemies ofZenger to ensure his ruin, ultimately proved themeans of his salvation.On the 4th of August 1705, the coiirt assembled forthe trial of the prisoner. Thecourt room was crowded to excess, and tlieiinexpected appearance of the eloquentHamilton as a counsel for Zenger iilled the oppositeparty with astonishment anddismay. The trial came on in the supreme court, withDelancj^ Acting Chief Jus-tice, Philipse as second judge, a.nd Bradley as

File1-Tilak TrialAttorney Ceneral. The published ar-ticles complained of were read, and Hamilton boldlyadmited responsibility forthem for his client. ^'Then the verdict must be forthe king'' exclaimed Bradley intriumph. Hamilton quietly reminded him that printingand libelling were notsynonymous terms, and was proceeding to prove thetruth of the charges contained inthe alleged libels, when he was interrupted by theAttorney General, on theplea that the truth of a libel could not be offeredin evidence as a defence. This con-tention was made at length by the Prosecution inwhich he was sustained by the court,which declared that a libel was all the moredangerous if true, and that therefore thetruth of the statements contained in the articlescould by no means be considered inthe case. Hamilton was therefore unable to put inhis evidence, but he made a brilliantaddress to the jiiry, ridiculing with biting sarcasmthe decision of the court, thattruth only made a libel the more dangerous andinsisting that the jury were judgesboth of the law and the fact, he adjurred them toprotect their own liberties, nowthreatened to the person of the persecuted Zenger Inhis definition of libelthe Attorney — General has declared — '' Whether aperson defamed be aprivate or a magistrate whether living or dead,whether the libel betrue or false, or the party against whom it is^madebe of good or evil fame, it is never-theless a libel and as such must be dealt withaccording to law" ; and he had gone onto demonstrate that Zenger had been gailty of a

File1-Tilak Trialgross offence against God and man inattacking by words and innuendoes the sacred personof royalty through its representa-tive, the Governor. Hamilton in his address turnedthese remarks, with infinitokeenness and wit against the state. '' Almostanything a man may write ", said he,'•may, with the help of that useful term of artcalled an i-jnuendo and be construed to bea libel, according to Mr. Attorney's dehnition of it; whether the words be spoken of aperson of public character or of a private man,whether dead or living, good or bad,

true or false, all make a libel If a libel isunderstood in the large and unlimited

sense of Mr. Attorney there is scarce a writing thatI know of, that may not be calleda libel, or scarce any person safe from being calledto account as a libeler ; for Moses,meek as he was, libeled Cain, and who is it that hasnot libeled the devil ; for,

according to Mr. Attorney, it is no justification tosay that one has a bad name I

sincerely believe that were some persons to gothrough the streets of New Yorknow-a-days and read a part of the Bible, if it werenot known to be such, Mr. Attorneywith the help of his innuendoes, would easily turnit into a libel. As, for instance, the10th verse of the 9th chapter of Isaiah ' Theleaders of the people (innuendo, theGovernor and Council of New York ) cause them (innuendo, the people of thisprovince ) to err, and they ( meaning the people of

File1-Tilak Trialthis province ) are destroyed( innuendo, are deceived into the loss of theirliberty, which is the worst kind ofdestruction ) " " Or, if some person should publiclyrepeat, in a manner displeasing

119

to his betters, the 10th and 11th verses of the 55thchapter of the same book, then Mi*.Attorney v>-ould have a large lield f(ir the displayof his skill in the artful applicationof his innundoes. The words are : * His watchmen areblind, they are ignorant, theyare greedy dogs that can never have enough.' But tomake them a libel, no more iswanting than ' His watchmen ( innuendo, theGovernor. Council and assembly ) areblind, they are ignorant ( innuendo, will not seethe dangerous designs of his Ex-cellency ); yea, they, (meaning the (xovernor andhis Council ) are greedy dogs whichcan never have enough ( innuendo, of riches andpower. )*' After dwelling on the factthat laughable as these illustrations might be. theywere strictly anagolousto the charges against his client, and urging thejury to judge for them-selves of the truth or falsehood of Zenger's articleand to render theirverdict accordingly, the eloquent barrister thusconcluded his remarks : —*• I labour under tlae weight of many years and amborne down by many infirmitiesof body; yet. old and weak as I am. I should thinkit my duty, if required, to go to

File1-Tilak Trialthe utmost part of this land, where my service couldbe of any use in assisting toquench the flame of prosecutions set on foot by thegovernment to deprive a peopleof the right of remonstrating (and complaining too)against the arbitary attemptsof men in power. Men who injuire and oppress thepeople under their administrationprovoke them to crv' out and complain, and then makethat very complaint,the foundation for new oppressions and prosecutions.I wish I could saythere were no instances of that kind. But toconclude, the question beforeyou, Genlemen of the jury, is of no small or privteconcern; it is not the cause of apoor printer, nor of new York alone, which you aretrying. No ! It may in its conse-quence affect every freeman that lives under theBritish (government on the mainlandof America. It is the best cause; it is the cause ofliberty: and I make no doubt butthat your upright conduct this day will not onlyentitle you to the love and esteemof your fellow-citizens, but every man who perfersfreedom to a life of salvery. willbless and honour von. as men who baffled theattempts of tyranny, and by an impartialand incorrupt verdict, have laid a noble foimdationfor seruring to ourselves, ourposterity and our neigldjours, that, to which natureand the laws of our countary havegiven us a right — the liberty of both exposing andopposing arbitrary power in theseparts of the world at least by speaking and writingthe truth'" The orator concludedamidst a burst of applause. Every eye in the Courtroom glistened with admiration and

File1-Tilak Trialevery heart forgot the dead letter of the law in theliving inspiration of triith andpatriotism. Wholly borne down by this torrent ofeloquence Bradley attempted but abrief reply and Delancy vainly charged the Jury thatthey were Judges not of the lawOnly of the fact, and that the truth of a hbel was aquestion beyond their Jurisdic-tion. Reason and common sense prevailed for onceover technicality and the Jury^^•ithdrew and returned, after a few minutesdeliberation, with a unanimous verdictof "not guilty.'' The Court-room rung with huzzaswhich the disappointed judgesvainly endeavored to suppress, and Hamilton wasborne from the Hall by the exultantcrowd to a splendid entertainment which had beenprovided for his reception.

Ex D 68.

SUDHARAK—Moy 11, P. 3. Cot. 2. — Sat/hii/ bomh wasfortold !>>/ Hon. Gokhalein 1905.

'î; ??TT 3TH^>rf?r w\ ^T ?n?T, i\ &percnt;w^ ^j^^Mrw^^z -i&percnt; ^ ^ w-^^^fj^ î^ ^^-

W^'^ ^\ =q^ô5m ^^^ 'J^V^ 3Tl'^=T^ -^T ipT ^Â.<^t?T ^.W. î^^^ ^^t ^^vT ^^\3TTf , 3Trm" rfm^ TITJT?^ "W-W. zH ^^ 'cflff . ^^rfJH^ r^J 3Tn&percnt; STT^t^TT 7?Tvr

5n^r 3^?T, ^m ^ ^v^ irmf^r ^m^ ^fr ^f ^»T^=sr ^r^^

File1-Tilak Trialq^v-î^t^ t[^^\t ^|r?r,f^=qT 'irgiTf T^¦^t^\ ^^j" 3^w ^t^ ^ -iTO"' tht^'^tI'TT ^^^ ^p:^ -m^^. ^^ 'jt^

120

^ êfNrr i&percnt;"Tfrrr jtptr sn&percnt;^H '^tt^fsttIct, rff f^t TRfîr^l-^ ^ôfr q-^ 3^?r, ?qf^3T^?:

^f '[FT ^FJoq-R-î ^?TT ^TTUtNt 3?^ &percnt;^^ '^\,f '-^FîTT ^Tf?r f^rTR ff ^R $t^H ^^

^^^ q-^^r^ 37qrF!:TT=^ ?T^'=^ ^'^ ^^t=^r ^rff.^rtrfr^ j'^^s Îzj }^]^ 371'^ îr?r?r ?5t^t-^TF^rr: 3TT?, 3^n&percnt; F'TtrT ^j:^r':r^&percnt;?rw^&percnt;i 'tft tfr ^rff 3T^ jrrftjTVr ^^î ^x^fj^]&percnt;

Ex D 69

SUBODJI PATRIKA—May 10th 1908, P. 0, Col. 3.

The bomb outrage at Mujafl'erpur to whicb oneinnocent syce and two Europeanladies fell victims is another indication of theundesirable way in which Bengalees aretraining themselves. The law will have its courseand the perpetrators of the crimewill get their meads. But this disgraceful incidentmust not blind the rulers to the factthat disaffection is spreading in the country in analarming degree. After the frenzywhich has taken hold of every Anglo-Indian head isover, we trust. Government will doits utmost to find out the causes of the

File1-Tilak Trialdisaffection which is more or less of its owncreation and will try to remove them. Something mustbe done to make such outragesimpossible and the only statesmanlike way to do itis to remove the causes that lead tothem.

Ex D 70.

SUBODTI PATRIKA—May, 11 th 1908. p. 2, col 2.

As might have been expectsd the " Bomb Outrage " hascreated an unprecedent-ed stir in tlie Anglo-Indian, and the Indian worldas well. Newspapers of the type ofthe Englishman and the Pioneer have been as it wereset a-raving by the bomb. Theyare all talking of hanging natives by the dozen forevery European killed and they haveput forth many other suggestions with a view tosecure the safety of the Europeans inIndia. We need hardly say that no real Indian canhave any sympathy with suchoutrages and the perpetrators of them, but at thesame time we cannot but condemn thevirulent writings of the Anglo-Indian press whichhas the one pei*nicious effect ofexciting racial animosities between His Majesty'ssubject races in this country. Ourimpression is that anti-Indian writings in theAnglo-Indian press of the rabid type areas much responsible for the breaking of law andorder by young men as are thewritings in the scurrilous vernacular press of the

File1-Tilak Trialland. Oould not Government who hasbeen prosecuting the Calcutta newspapers sopersistently see its way to deal in adeserving manner with the Anglo-Indian press alsol-* If it did, it would be removinghalf the cause of the discontent prevalent in ourmidst. The policy of repression wassure to result in anarchism. This was foreseen bymen like Mr. R. C. Dutt and Mr.Gokhale, the latter giving Government a warningagainst making fanatics of people bycontinuing to follow the policy any longer.Unfortunately Avhat these men foresawhas come to pass. Now at least will not Governmentstop to consider whether the timesdo not demand a (;hange in their methods of work ?Some people say bombs are theoutcome of Sa-adeshi. If so Sicadeshi is theoiitcome of the Partition of Bengal. It fol-lows therefore, that bombs and the like are theresult of that ill-advised measure forthe non-modification of which Government is whollyresponsible. The real statesman-ship of the present moment is to undo that mosthated measure and to remove the rootof the discontent altogether. It is never too lateto mend. Nothing can become a settledfact even if Vi,

tilak trial of 1908

Documents