“Maintaining societal inequality is in the self-interest of the Brahmin priestly class.”
This headline in a special edition of a Marathi newspaper called Satyavadi in 1928 reflected how anti-Brahminical sentiments were gaining popularity through the writings of non-Brahmin and Dalit writers in the early 20th century Maharashtra.
But, as this article demonstrated, these views were also echoed by some notable Brahmin writers. That piece was written by Shridharpant Tilak, the youngest son of freedom hero and noted conservative Bal Gangadhar Tilak.
Shirdharpant Tilak was one of a clutch of Chitpavan Brahmin writers who had become close allies of the emerging group of non-Brahmin writers in the mid-1920s. His story is an example of how the complex dynamic in the early 20th century Maharashtra as supporters of Brahminism faced off against those crusading against the ideology.
Instead of pitting Brahmins and non-Brahmins as eternal foes, the reimagining of caste and religion in this period allows us to explore the complex intermeshing of ideologies and personalities.
By the time Shirdharpant Tilak wrote his Satyavadi article, he had already gained a reputation for his social reformist activities. His stature as an anti-caste public speaker was growing.
He began his article by mentioning the heroic exploits of the French revolution. Tellingly, he rearranged the order of the principle of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity – suggesting instead that Equality should lead, followed by Fraternity and finally Liberty.
Writing at a time when non-Brahmin writers were pushing for a discourse around social freedom over political freedom, Shridharpant Tilak’s reimagination of this central principle of French revolution demonstrated that he had pledged his allegiance to the non-Brahmin idea of freedom.
Using the analogy of staircases, Shridharpant Tilak said that if the first two steps were not crossed, the person trying to ascend would lose his balance and come crashing down. He stated that the first step of Equality could not be bypassed to achieve the last step of Swaraj.
For Tilak, the inextricable conflict between “Brahmins and non-Brahmins” and “touchables and untouchables” was one of the hurdles that would have to be overcome to achieve Equality, Fraternity and Liberty. His acknowledgement of this conflict and the admission of the Herculean efforts needed to eradicate this division stood in stark contrast to his father’s understanding of the positions of Brahmins and non-Brahmins.
In an editorial titled Brahman va Brahmanetar published in Kesari on March 16, 1920, Bal Gangadhar “Lokmanya” Tilak blamed non-Brahmins for needlessly invoking the divisions between the two communities. Tilak Senior claimed that by doing so, non-Brahmins were “mischief devising”. He said that these divisions were unnecessary, inconsiderate and unwise and would harm the collective good.
Conversely, this son declared in this article that the idea of national pride could only be nurtured by obliterating caste differences.
Shirdharpant Tilak’s empathy with non-Brahmin assertions can also be gauged by his glowing praise for Jotirao Phule, the anti-caste crusader who had founded the Satyashodhak movement (Truth-Seeking Movement) in 1873. In December 1927, Tilak’s public speech on the occasion of Phule’s centenary was published in Vividhvrutta. Halfway into the speech, Shridharpant Tilak proclaimed, “I am myself not a Satyasamajist [a member of the Satyashodhak movement]. But in some way, I am a Satyashodhak [a truth-seeker].”
He went on to say how Satyashodhaks are individuals who, irrespective of which movement they belong to, have a steady mind and the willingness to put honest efforts in finding which party possesses the truth.
These sentiments were reflected in an example he shared in the same speech about a new book titled Mother India by Katherine Mayo, an American journalist covering the everyday predicaments of untouchables and young Hindu girls being married off at a young age.
Even though Shridharpant Tilak believed that Mayo’s observations were uncalled for, especially the acerbic tone of her writing, he believed that the book was seeking the truth. He agreed with Mohandas Gandhi’s characterisation of Mayo’s book as a “drain inspector’s report”. However, in a polemical sense, Tilak retorted, “Even if the timing of this waste material being flushed out from the drainage can be questioned, why was the drainage allowed to be clogged for so long?”
This was also a reminder to his audience that the situation must have been even worse during Phule’s time.
In a characteristically crowd-pleasing move, Shridharpant Tilak reminded the audience of how the seven-storeyed Peshwa mansion in Pune’s Shaniwarvada was destroyed in a fire in 1827, the year of Phule’s birth.
By doing this, Tilak was attempting to claim that the deplorable conditions of untouchables in his time were the outcome of Peshwa rule. Using the analogy of the Norman conquest of 11th century England, he explained how the situation of untouchables was exactly the same as that of the native Saxon people of England.
For Tilak, this divinely ordained coincidence of the Shaniwarvada fire and Phule’s birth was a sign from heaven that Phule would be able to establish a new robust foundation for Hindu dharma.
Phule’s emergence, he believed, was a major inflection point in the global historical consciousness around social and religious reform. Calling Phule the “Martin Luther” of Maharashtra, Shridharpant Tilak described the leader’s Satyashodhak Samaj as India’s Reformation and Phule’s fight against Brahmin hegemony as Protestantism.
Shridharpant Tilak’s growing stature as an astute observer of caste and religion won him the praise of BR Ambedkar. Being a prolific anti-caste writer who fought for the social and political rights of the untouchable community, Ambedkar considered Jotirao Phule as his guru and praised Phule as being the true teacher of non-Brahmins. In fact, Ambedkar was one of the last few people to receive a letter from Shridharpant Tilak before he died by suicide in 1928.
In this moving address on Shridharpant Tilak’s death published in Duniya, Ambedkar’s speech reminded his audience that the elder Tilak never undertook lokasangraha or community building. He said that real lokasangraha could have been achieved had Shirdharpant Tilak lived longer.
Ambedkar said it was difficult for him to explain Shridharpant Tilak’s dedication and acumen. In the same address, Ambedkar expressed his fondness for Shridharpant by saying that the affection they shared for each other was more than what we find among real brothers. Perhaps the highest form of praise reserved by Ambedkar was when he made a bold claim that eradicating untouchability in Maharashtra could have been achieved if Shridharpant Tilak had still been alive.
Shridharpant Tilak had died on May 25, 1928, which was a Friday. A few weeks later, Ambedkar started a new periodical named Samata in 1928. The first issue of this newspaper remembered Tilak by saying, “In order to remember him forever, the publication date of this newspaper was kept as a Friday.”
Shridharpant Tilak’s admiration for Phule and its reciprocal gesture by Ambedkar blurred the notions of antagonism and friendship between Brahmins and non-Brahmins.
In his obituary of Shridharpant Tilak, Prabodhankar Thackeray, a staunch critic of Brahminism himself, recollected one recurring phenomenon. As Thackeray and Tilak walked down Pune’s street, Brahmins would be visibly angry.
Thackeray was a Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu, a community with a long history of confronting Brahmin dominance in everyday life. Tilak was a Chitpavan Brahmin.
For these Brahmins, a “Chitpavan hater” and a “Chitpavan Brahmin” walking together disrupted their established notions of friend and foe and their faces “turned into bitter poison”. On seeing this, Thackeray recalled, “we have laughed out aloud”.
Surajkumar Thube has recently completed his PhD in History from the University of Oxford.
India to South Africa: How two activists defied their family legacies to challenge injustice
