It is, I think, equally plain that this construction of the word ' disaffection' is opposed to all ordinary English usage in words compounded with the particle 'dis. This, indeed, was recognized by the Full Bench which amended Mr. Justice Strachey's definition : see Queen-Empress v.
The present Explanation No. With these definitions before us I say that there is not in my opinion any real doubt about the law governing the case. Next there were on behalf of the defence two preliminary arguments on which a word must be said.
It will only be a word, because in my judgment the points taken are wholly devoid of substance or merit. First, then, it was said that there could be no excitement or disaffection in these speeches, inasmuch as the speaker openly and sincerely professed his loyalty to His Majesty the King-Emperor and the British Parliament.
To that I have only to say that, as I read Section A , it is clear that to a charge of exciting disaffection towards the Government established by law in British India a profession, however sincere, of loyalty to His Majesty and the British Parliament, is no answer whatever. Secondly, it was contended that the speeches could not in law offend against Section A , because the speaker's attack was made not on the Government nominatim but on the Civil Service only.
That, I think, is not quite so in fact. But assuming it to be so, it affords no answer to the charge. For the Government established by law acts through human agency and admittedly the Civil Service is its principal agency for the administration of the country in times of peace. Therefore where, as here, you criticise the Civil Service en bloc, the question whether you excite disaffection against the Government or not seems to me a pure question of fact. You do so if the natural effect of your words, infusing hatred of the Civil Service, is also to infuse hatred or contempt of the established Government whose accredited agent the Civil Service is.
You avoid doing so if, preferring appropriate language of moderation, you use words which do not naturally excite such hatred of Government. It is, I think, a mere question of fact.
How to get to Lokamanya Balagangadhara Tilak Park in Mysuru by Bus or Train | Moovit
Passing now to the speeches themselves, they must be read as a whole. A fair construction must be put upon them, straining nothing either for the Crown or for the applicant and paying more attention to the whole general effect than to any isolated words or passages. The question is, whether upon such fair construction these speeches offend under A or not. Now, first, as to the general aim of the speaker, it is, I think, reasonably clear that in contending for what he describes as swarajya his object is to obtain for Indians an increased and gradually increasing share of political authority and to subject the administration of the country to the control of the people or peoples of India.
I am of opinion that the advocacy of such an object is not per se an infringement of the law, nor has the learned Advocate General contended otherwise.
Taking the road less travelled
I wish to be understood as confining these last observations to the case which we have before us and to the object which, as I have explained, these speeches seem to me to pursue. I desire to guard myself from being supposed to say that the advocacy of swarajya is in all cases permissible. That is a point upon which it is not necessary now to pronounce an opinion and upon which I refrain from pronouncing an opinion. For, as I understand it, the word swarajya may have a dozen - different meanings in the mouths of as many speakers.
The remarks which I have made are applicable only to the object aimed at in these speeches, as I have already defined that object. We must now turn to the actual language employed by the applicant, noting especially the methods which the speaker advocates for ensuring the political changes which he seeks. First it is a matter for observation that he formally and expressly repudiates all intention of sedition. That of course is by no means conclusive. But it is a fact to be considered along with other facts.
For I am bound to say that a candid reading of the whole speeches does not convince me that the repudiation of disloyalty is feigned or artificial. Now the intention to create disaffection must of course be proved and following the usual rule that a man must be taken to intend the natural and probable consequences of his own acts, we must seek for the speaker's intention in the language which he has used. In the course of the argument comments were made and quite properly made, on the form of many expressions to be found in the addresses, this form being in many cases offensive or insulting in the personal sense.
These matters, however, though they may convict the speaker of bad taste or bad temper, do not seem to me to go very far towards convicting him of a violation of the criminal law. Now it not being contended that the main object of the speaker's advocacy is in itself forbidden, we must see whether there is anything in the language used or the methods urged which fairly brings the applicant within the penal section. The answer must of course depend on the effect likely to be produced by the speeches on the minds of the hearers Would that effect naturally and probably be to excite disaffection, as defined in the section, or to excite only such measure of disapprobation as is not forbidden by the law?
The arguments which we have heard to assist us in answering this question are no doubt helpful.
But it must be borne in mind that all such arguments necessarily concentrate upon certain selected passages, whereas the Court's aim is to decide upon the general effect of the speeches as a whole. Probably the fairest way to ascertain that effect is to read the three speeches from beginning to end quietly and attentively, remembering the arguments and remembering the politically ignorant audience whom Mr. Tilak was addressing. I have so read these speeches not once, but several times and the impression left on my mind is that on the whole, despite certain passages which are rightly objected to by the prosecution, the general effect would not naturally and probably be to cause disaffection, i.
For this conclusion I can only appeal to the general purport of all the three speeches as a whole. They cover 34 pages of print and of course I cannot set them out in extenso in this judgment. I must, therefore, perforce refer to particular passages of particular consequence. But I wish it to be understood that my decision is based not on particular passages, but upon the general effect. I proceed now to cite a few passages in order to show what in the speaker's own language is the meaning of that swarajya which he was advocating to his audience. He tells them: "But however good may be the arrangement made by other people, still it is not the case that he who wants to have the power to make this arrangement always approves of it.
This is the principle of swarajya. If you got the powers to select your Collector, it cannot be said with certainty that he would do any more work than the present Collector. Perhaps he may not do. He may even do it badly. I admit this To put it briefly, the demand that the management of our affairs should be in our hands is the demand for swarajya If you carry on such an effort now for five or twenty-five years, you will never fail to obtain its fruit.
This passage is important as showing that the speaker does not expect that the political change which he advocates is to come suddenly or by a stroke of the pen. In other passages he uses the following language: " Confer those powers upon the people so that they may duly look to their domestic affairs. We ask for swarajya of this kind. This swarajya does not mean that the English Government should be removed, the Emperor's rule should be removed and the rule of some one of our native states should be established in its place But we must do those things which relate to business, trade, religion and society.
Unless the power of doing those things comes partially into our hands in the end it must come fully-unless it comes fully into our hands, it is impossible for us to see a time of plenty, the dawn of good fortune, advantage of prosperity. Water cannot be drunk with others' mouths. Bala Gangadhara Tilak repairing a damaged road in thecity. Photo: M. Whenever he ventures out in his car, he is on the lookout for tar mixed gravel dumped on roadsides.
One might wonder why a senior citizen is looking for a tar and gravel on the roads. Well, Mr.
Tilak's mission is to collect the unclaimed tar and gravel and fill potholes elsewhere. Not confining himself to his locality, everyday he sweats it out to patch up almost every pothole on his way. Starting his day at nine in the morning, he travels along different routes and scouts for potholes. The moment, he spots one; he immediately stops his car and puts up two red flags to alert road users.
Hij verschilde van mening met Mahatma Gandhi, die hem als een mentor beschouwde, over hoe onafhankelijkheid bewerkstelligd kon worden. Tilak vond dat aan gebruik van geweld soms niet te ontkomen viel, terwijl Gandhi totale ahimsa "geweldloosheid" bepleitte. For the poet, see Devarakonda Balagangadhara Tilak.
- Bal Gangadhar Tilak - Wikiquote.
- Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the architect of present day Ganesh Chathurthi celebrations;
- Where to Buy DRM Free Books.
- How to get to Lokamanya Balagangadhara Tilak Park by Bus?.
- When the Bottom Drops Out: Finding Grace in the Depths of Disappointment?
- Rise to national prominence?
Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Indian independence activist en. Bal Gangadhar Tilak en.