What do you think?
Rate this book
लोकमान्य टिळक [Lokamanya Tilak]
१९५९ साली टिळक चरित्राची पहिली आवृत्ती इंग्रजीत प्रसिद्ध झाली होती. त्याचा हा अनुवाद.
650 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1959
1 person is currently reading
35 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 23, 2021
This is a book about the true father of our freedom struggle, Lokmanya Tilak. All his life was dedicated to the mission of the country, not once did he think of fame, money or being in the good books of the British by saying pleasing things about them, unlike his contemporaries. A brilliant mathematician and a law graduate, he could have easily chosen a lucrative career and led a comfortable life. But, he chose the other way. Seeing the miserable state of brainwashed Indian children coming out of British schools, he along with some other great men, dedicated their life to setting up the first indigenous school, based on modern principles, where the students along with necessary elements of education like mathematics, the sciences and English, were taught patriotism for their country and culture. The teachers like Tilak, put their youth in this effort, sometimes at the cost of their family comfort and an easy life. He had to take out time to take law classes to earn enough money to provide for his family.
The life of Shree Tilak is inspiring and eye opening. He never shied away from the truth, nothing scared him, a fearless karma yogi, who never hesitated to do what was right. He suffered all his life for the cause of our nation. Apart from his political life, his personal life is indeed inspiring too. He kept the promise given to past friends even at the cost of his personal life and health. Apart from this, he was a profound scholar too, and was the leader in refuting the false theory propagated by the British and their lackeys that the Bhagawat Gita is symbolic and the 5 pandavas just refer to the five senses and the dharma-yuddha is fight against one's desires and so on. This was obviously done to pacify the Indian population so that they don't stand up against exploitation by the British. I am planning to read in the future, his monumental work on the Geeta, Gita Rahasya.
He is a rare politician who dug up and utilized the symbols of our tradition to awaken our people from deep slumber, and took politics to mass level, unlike the so called moderates who were just passing their time, and not doing anything substantial.
I rate this book 4 stars, instead of 5, because I think a slight bias is present in the narrative. It is indeed a wonderful book, considering the time it was written, when we were just emerging from colonialism. But, for the present times, when we have decolonized a little more, a commoner like me can also spot some biases in our thought categories that were obviously inserted by British propaganda.
For instance, the usage of the terms moderates and extremists does seem problematic. It is part of the narrative of one side which was lacklustre in its commitment to the freedom and welfare of India, and more engrossed in their own world, and for whom, Congress was just a pass time to give speeches among selected elites, and where lawyers went post retirement, to get money and prestige, as well as stay in power lobbies. Those were the so-called moderates. Neutrally seeing the scenario, there was nothing extreme about the extremists. They were just patriots, who actually wanted to do something. Those people who take up arms and advocate violence are called extremists. The party led by Shree Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Aurobindo and Lala Lajpat Rai, didn't show any of these characteristics. They were just more concerned, and put out the real issues of the country, and tried to pressure the government and awaken the public, ordinary things that are expected of any democratic opposition in a democracy also.
Another clear biased opinion that the author wrongfully charges against Shree Tilak is the accusation of being pro-upper caste and being a Brahmin supremacist. Again, maybe the author was influenced by the rhetoric of his times, and failed to see the facts that he himself stated in his book. It is quite clear in his personal life, that he was a liberal, and didn't believe in some outdated practices like prohibition of going for voyages outside India, or interacting with Christians or Muslims, for the job required at hand. Also, he was a strong proponent of modern scientific education, and even tried to suggest the muttadishas in the south to follow Swami Vivekananda's example, and give both Eastern and Western training to their monks and acharyas, to be better equipped to deal with problems of the modern world.
In his politics, the author takes exception to him conceeding to the issues of Brahmins sometimes. Again, he fails to understand the personality of Tilak. Tilak ji was neither pro 'upper' caste, nor pro 'backward caste'. He was first and foremost pro-India, and pro-Hindu, and anti-British. Shree Tilak himself stated that he took up the issues that were popular with the politically awakened public. As in his times, it was mainly the Brahmins of Maharashtra that were politically awakened and anti-British, (perhaps because of being educated first) he aired their views and opinions, to tackle the British. Later in his life, when the other castes were politically awakened and began organizing themselves, he saw in them a greater opportunity to tackle the British, as they were more in number. He then took up their issues, and didn't hesitate criticizing Brahmins also. In my opinion, that is what a democratic leader should do. Instead of a superiority complex about knowing everything (for instance Gandhi), he must take up the issues of his electorate, or the people he represents. In short, Shree Bal Gangadhar Tilak's being born in a Brahmin family played no role in his political life, being pro-Brahmin or Anti-Brahmin. That is an unfair charge levelled against him by the author.
Another criticism of the author that I would include is his reading of the Khilafat movement. Perhaps influenced by Nehruvian historians, the author also tends to say that the real communalism of Muslims occurred by the Lucknow Pact, headed by Bal Gangadhar Tilak. That is a silly statement, I feel, only made to hide the blunder of Gandhi during the Khilafat movement, where he misused the strong organisation set up by the sacrifices and hard work of leaders like Tilak, only to take up a Muslim religious issue, and arouse in them religious sentiments. The Lucknow Pact was a tactical move by Shree Tilak, which at that time, included a deal with a Muslim league, which was only an elitist organization set up with the help of the British government, to counter the Congress. They had no presence on the ground and among the masses. The arousing of religious sentiments of the Muslims, and making them feel that they were different from Hindus and their demands were different was essentially due to Gandi's blunder of the Non-Cooperation Khilafat movement.
Also, the book is not written in a professional manner. The author includes casual remarks that are perhaps his own opinions or show his own amazement. But, a biography is supposed to be a neutral account of the events that occurred along with a possible explanation of the history and background.
But the criticism aside, I think it is a great book, and anyone who is interested in the history of India and the freedom struggle against the British must read this. Apart from this, it is worth reading even to understand Shree Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whose life is an ideal in itself.
The life of Shree Tilak is inspiring and eye opening. He never shied away from the truth, nothing scared him, a fearless karma yogi, who never hesitated to do what was right. He suffered all his life for the cause of our nation. Apart from his political life, his personal life is indeed inspiring too. He kept the promise given to past friends even at the cost of his personal life and health. Apart from this, he was a profound scholar too, and was the leader in refuting the false theory propagated by the British and their lackeys that the Bhagawat Gita is symbolic and the 5 pandavas just refer to the five senses and the dharma-yuddha is fight against one's desires and so on. This was obviously done to pacify the Indian population so that they don't stand up against exploitation by the British. I am planning to read in the future, his monumental work on the Geeta, Gita Rahasya.
He is a rare politician who dug up and utilized the symbols of our tradition to awaken our people from deep slumber, and took politics to mass level, unlike the so called moderates who were just passing their time, and not doing anything substantial.
I rate this book 4 stars, instead of 5, because I think a slight bias is present in the narrative. It is indeed a wonderful book, considering the time it was written, when we were just emerging from colonialism. But, for the present times, when we have decolonized a little more, a commoner like me can also spot some biases in our thought categories that were obviously inserted by British propaganda.
For instance, the usage of the terms moderates and extremists does seem problematic. It is part of the narrative of one side which was lacklustre in its commitment to the freedom and welfare of India, and more engrossed in their own world, and for whom, Congress was just a pass time to give speeches among selected elites, and where lawyers went post retirement, to get money and prestige, as well as stay in power lobbies. Those were the so-called moderates. Neutrally seeing the scenario, there was nothing extreme about the extremists. They were just patriots, who actually wanted to do something. Those people who take up arms and advocate violence are called extremists. The party led by Shree Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Aurobindo and Lala Lajpat Rai, didn't show any of these characteristics. They were just more concerned, and put out the real issues of the country, and tried to pressure the government and awaken the public, ordinary things that are expected of any democratic opposition in a democracy also.
Another clear biased opinion that the author wrongfully charges against Shree Tilak is the accusation of being pro-upper caste and being a Brahmin supremacist. Again, maybe the author was influenced by the rhetoric of his times, and failed to see the facts that he himself stated in his book. It is quite clear in his personal life, that he was a liberal, and didn't believe in some outdated practices like prohibition of going for voyages outside India, or interacting with Christians or Muslims, for the job required at hand. Also, he was a strong proponent of modern scientific education, and even tried to suggest the muttadishas in the south to follow Swami Vivekananda's example, and give both Eastern and Western training to their monks and acharyas, to be better equipped to deal with problems of the modern world.
In his politics, the author takes exception to him conceeding to the issues of Brahmins sometimes. Again, he fails to understand the personality of Tilak. Tilak ji was neither pro 'upper' caste, nor pro 'backward caste'. He was first and foremost pro-India, and pro-Hindu, and anti-British. Shree Tilak himself stated that he took up the issues that were popular with the politically awakened public. As in his times, it was mainly the Brahmins of Maharashtra that were politically awakened and anti-British, (perhaps because of being educated first) he aired their views and opinions, to tackle the British. Later in his life, when the other castes were politically awakened and began organizing themselves, he saw in them a greater opportunity to tackle the British, as they were more in number. He then took up their issues, and didn't hesitate criticizing Brahmins also. In my opinion, that is what a democratic leader should do. Instead of a superiority complex about knowing everything (for instance Gandhi), he must take up the issues of his electorate, or the people he represents. In short, Shree Bal Gangadhar Tilak's being born in a Brahmin family played no role in his political life, being pro-Brahmin or Anti-Brahmin. That is an unfair charge levelled against him by the author.
Another criticism of the author that I would include is his reading of the Khilafat movement. Perhaps influenced by Nehruvian historians, the author also tends to say that the real communalism of Muslims occurred by the Lucknow Pact, headed by Bal Gangadhar Tilak. That is a silly statement, I feel, only made to hide the blunder of Gandhi during the Khilafat movement, where he misused the strong organisation set up by the sacrifices and hard work of leaders like Tilak, only to take up a Muslim religious issue, and arouse in them religious sentiments. The Lucknow Pact was a tactical move by Shree Tilak, which at that time, included a deal with a Muslim league, which was only an elitist organization set up with the help of the British government, to counter the Congress. They had no presence on the ground and among the masses. The arousing of religious sentiments of the Muslims, and making them feel that they were different from Hindus and their demands were different was essentially due to Gandi's blunder of the Non-Cooperation Khilafat movement.
Also, the book is not written in a professional manner. The author includes casual remarks that are perhaps his own opinions or show his own amazement. But, a biography is supposed to be a neutral account of the events that occurred along with a possible explanation of the history and background.
But the criticism aside, I think it is a great book, and anyone who is interested in the history of India and the freedom struggle against the British must read this. Apart from this, it is worth reading even to understand Shree Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whose life is an ideal in itself.
Displaying 1 of 1 review