During the hot
weather of 1897, from to June, the bubonic plague raged in Poona in a
severe epidemic form; and the Government of Bombay had to adopt drastic
measures to meet the
situation. The military, mostly British soldiers, were employed
to
visit the houses of the inhabitants, to discover concealed cases of
plague, and enforce disinfectant and other hygienic measures.
This caused intense discontent and resentment in the native population
of Poona. On June 15th 1897, the "Kesari", a paper edited by B.G.
Tilak, published a report of the festival held in commemoration of the
Rajyabhishek (coronation) of Shivaji at Raygad in 1674. The issue
also contained an article justifying the killing of Afzal Khan by
Shivaji. Speeches were made by Tilak at the festival, justifying
Shivaji in the affair. "Did Shivaji commit a sin in killing Afzal
Khan or not ? The answer to that question can be found in the
Mahabharat itself. Srimat Krishna's advice in the Gita is to kill
even our own teachers and kinsmen. No blame attaches to any person if
he is doing deeds without being actuated by a desire to reap the fruits
of his deeds. Shri Shivaji did nothing with a view to fill the
void of his own stomach. With benevolent intentions he murdered
Afzal Khan, for the good of others. If thieves enter our house
and we have not sufficient strength t drive them out, we should
without hesitation shut them up and burn them alive. God has not
conferred upon the foreigners the grant, inscribed on a copperplate, of
the Kingdom of Hindustan. The Maharaja (Shivaji) strove to drive
them away from the land of his birth. He did not thereby commit
the sin of coveting what belonged to others. Do not
circumscribed your vision, like a frog in a well; get out of the
Penal Code, and enter the extremely high atmosphere of the Srimat
Bhagavad Gita, and consider the actions of great men." The paper
also contained certain verses in Marathi, in which Shivaji is shown as
waking up from his sleep of ages, and lamenting the oppression which he
found prevailing in his
native land.
A week later, on
22nd of June, the Collector of Poona, Mr. Rand, who was responsible for
the plague measures, and a young military officer, Lt. Ayerst, were
shot dead by some Brahmin youths, while they were driving back from the
Government House at night along the Ganeshkhind Road. These
murders caused intense indignation among the Europeans and in the
Government; and all Poona and Bombay were in
a state of great agitation. It was pointed out that the murders
of
the two officers were the direct result of the incitement caused by
Tilak's speeches and articles. Government decided to prosecute
Tilak for sedition under Sec. 124-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Tilak was tried before Justice Strachey and a special jury. He
had applied to be released on bail. Twice the bail was
refused. On the third occasion, his counsel, D.D. Davar
(afterwards Mr. Justice Davar) succeeded in obtaining bail from the
High Court; and Tilak was granted bail in the sum of Rs.50,000, a
rather large amount, to be produced within 24 hours. In the
meanwhile, Tilak was kept under surveillance in the Prothonotary's
office. Dwarkadas Dharamsey, a leading merchant and public man of
Bombay (afterwards Sheriff of Bombay), produced the sum of Rs.50,000 in
about 4 hours. The Advocate-General, Lang, with Strangman,
appeared for the prosecution; and Tilak was defended by two Calcutta
barristers, L.P. Evans Pugh and Garth, with D.D.Davar of Bombay.
On the face of the article, the offense with which Tilak was charged
appeared
to have been made out. The article was an attempt to bring the
Government
into hatred and contempt. Strachey, who was a most conscientious and
painstaking
judge, delivered a very long and laborious charge to the jury; but the
committed
a slip in telling the jury that "disaffection" meant "absence of
affection",
instead of saying that it meant "contrary of affection", or
hatred.
Some point was made of this "slip" by Tilak's counsel; but Strachey was
merely
quoting the Calcutta High Court in a previous case of sedition.
Tilak
was found guilty by the jury and sentenced to 18 months'
imprisonment.
He applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Privy Council;
but
leave was refused. He then made a petition to the Privy Council
for
special leave to appeal; and Mr. Asquith (Afterwards Prime Minister of
England)
appeared for him before the Privy Council; but the special leave was
also
refused.
*
* * * *
|