As regards the 1895 Ganapati festival in Bombay, the Commissioner of police had the following to report: “A new feature of this year’s ‘Ganapati’ was the introduction by the Brahmins of certain oarts of Melas, and it was first thought they might be the cause of trouble; but a visit to some of the principal orats where melas were performing showed that though an innovation, they were harmless enough. Bands of well-trained young men and boys of respectability, dressed in garments of uniform hue and pattern, singing songs (Hindu), marched round with measured step to the accompaniment afforded by the rapping together of two drum-sticks, held by each member of the band. The words were of innocent nature, and nothing in the performance, from first to last, could possibly annoy or hurt the feelings of the most susceptible Muhammadan. On the day the processions left these oarts, these bands were permitted to accompany them, and, beyond bringing together a large number of spectators along the line of march, in no way proved to be a source of trouble.

It was noticed that several influential Hindus took part in the processions issuing from one or two of these oarts, which though unusual, was not perhaps a matter of regret. On the whole, the Bombay Hindus made more of their festival this year than usual, processions were larger and the crowds of sight-seers greater; but for the most part, they were orderly and well behaved as ever, and everything passed off without a hitch”.

As regards the 1895 Ganapati festival in Bombay, the Commissioner of police had the following to report: “A new feature of this year’s ‘Ganapati’ was the introduction by the Brahmins of certain oarts of Melas, and it was first thought they might be the cause of trouble; but a visit to some of the principal orats where melas were performing showed that though an innovation, they were harmless enough. Bands of well-trained young men and boys of respectability, dressed in garments of uniform hue and pattern, singing songs (Hindu), marched round with measured step to the accompaniment afforded by the rapping together of two drum-sticks, held by each member of the band. The words were of innocent nature, and nothing in the performance, from first to last, could possibly annoy or hurt the feelings of the most susceptible Muhammadan. On the day the processions left these oarts, these bands were permitted to accompany them, and, beyond bringing together a large number of spectators along the line of march, in no way proved to be a source of trouble. It was noticed that several influential Hindus took part in the processions issuing from one or two of these oarts, which though unusual, was not perhaps a matter of regret. On the whole, the Bombay Hindus made more of their festival this year than usual, processions were larger and the crowds of sight-seers greater; but for the most part, they were orderly and well behaved as ever, and everything passed off without a hitch”.

The Nasik District Superintendent of Police made the following report on the Ganapati procession that took place in Nasik on the 3^rd September, 1895: “it was a much larger affair than was anticipated, and consisted of 50 carts of Ganapatis, Ram, Laxman and other effigies. Of these 49 carts were brought by Kalgiwallas of Kazipur and one from Ganeshpura. Many Musalmans attended the procession, and I noticed that most musicians of the many bands accompanying the procession were Musalmans. This is rather against any theory that the procession assumed its large dimensions through the Brahmin instigation so as to out rival the Muharram…” (Emphasis added).

Similar police intelligence reports were received from all the major centres, but there was nothing in them to show that Ganapati festival was in any way directed against the Muslims. It seems that it was only in Pune that a concerted attempt was made to dissuade the Hindus from participating in the Muharram, which seemed to be more in retaliation of the Muslim attitude to the  ‘question of music’. In this connection, the following unpleasant episode was reported by the District Superintendent of Police of Pune on September 8, 1895:

“On the night of 3^rd instant (3 Sept. 1895), a horse made of mud, belonging to one Ganaparao Hanmantrao Shinde, maratha residing in Shanwar Peth, Poona, was broken. The mud horse has a history. It is supposed to have been given to the owner’s family by the Peshwas and was paraded annually in the Muharram as a ‘Gora Pir’. Upto 1893 the Parvat temple committee used to allow the Nagarkhana (drums from the temple) to be used in front of the ‘Gora Pir’. Since the differences between the Hindus and Muhammadans in Poona, the Brahmins have been endeavouring to dissuade Ganapatrao from joining in the muharram and persuade him to give up the ‘Gore Pir’ and go in for ‘Ganapati’ instead. Ganapatrao has steadily refused to transfer his alligiance from the Muhammadan to the Hindu festival; consequently the Brahmins first of all stopped the ancient privilege he enjoyed of having the Parvati drums in front of the ‘Gora Pir’; then they caused him to be more or less boycotted; and now they have put some badmash to creep into the premises at night and smash the ‘Gora Pir’. The old man, however, is still determined to stick to the Muharram”.

It was also reported that some of the booklets issued on the eve of the 1895 festival, and some of the songs sung in the melas continued “Objectionable references” to the Muslims. But the principal object of the booklets and the songs, it is clear from the report, was to create an anti-foreign rule feeling and to promote nationalism. The report said: “Shivaji’s name and deeds are frequently extolled, Mr. Tilak is praised and here and there the wish is expressed that some leader among the Hindus would arise like Shivaji to deliver the oppressed Hindus”. Copies of the booklets which were considered objectionable were sent to the District Magistrate of Poona for his perusal and suggest suitable action. He wrote: “Some of the passages are distinctly disloyal and seditious like much that is published almost daily in the native newspapers. But the verses are the most mischievous. We can prevent their being sung by the mela under the licence of the Police, but we cannot prevent their passing into the popular and household reportoire”.

The Ganapati festival was also used to spread the gospel of Swadeshi. The Poona Vartinidhi of August 12 1896 advised “owners of Ganapatis at the ensuing festival not to allow melas, members of which were wearing clothing made up of cloth manufactured in foreign countries, to sing before their Ganapatis”, and said that “tips should be given to the melawallas to wear only cloth of Indian manufacture”. The advice seems to have been well received, for the District Magistrate of Ahmadnagar sent the following report on September 21, 1896: “In watching the crowd in the Ganapati processions on the 20^th instant, I noticed hardly any Musalman, who seemed to hold aloof entirely. Nearly every one of the ‘Ganapati’ cars carried a large card with the words ‘Phakt Deshi Kapad’ (only country made cloth) in Marathi printed on it, and small leaflets advocating the use of country-made cloth only were distributed in the streets to the crowds”.

The 1897 festival was celebrated under the shadow of the prosecution of Tilak. Reviewing the festival of that year, the Bombay Police wrote: “The cries of ‘victory to Shivaji’, ‘victory to Maharaja Tilak’ were raised but for the most part the proceedings were tame and the whole festival was marked by a want of ‘go’ due, not doubt, to apprehensions caused by the arrest of the Natus and the prosecution of Tilak”.

Over the year, the Ganapati festival, besides providing a great annual religious feast to the people, became a powerful instrument for disseminating the nationalistic ideas, especially of the extremist party: “Swadeshi, boycott and Swaraj” became the standard nationalist slogan. The Government repression increased, so did the political aspirations of the people which found vent in the lectures, melas and songs during the festival.

The bureaucracy heaved a sign of relief when Tilak was tried for the second time for sedition and sentenced to a long imprisonment. Roughly from that time, wrote Edwardes: “The more disturbing features of the festival gradually disappeared”. Actually, for the first two years after the incarceration of Tilak to Mandalay, contrary to the government expectations, the people, angered by the cruel act, celebrated the festival with even greater vigour than before, and it then became more political than ever. On July 10, 1910, the Bombay Commissioner of police sent a review of the altered character of the movement to Bombay Government:

The movement which began as an opposition show to the local Musalman festival began to assume the character of an annual anti-Government eruption. Exhortation to use home-made clothes, the purity of Hinduism, social reform, the plague, Government measures generally and Lord Curzon in particular, the Congress, the Moderates, Lal, Bal and Pal and other persons of the official Demonlogy-these subjects under the tuition of the Extremist agents gradually formed the themes of the songs sung in the festival.

To supress the movement, the authorities resorted to extreme measures. The new and more rigid rules for the conduct of the festival were framed and rigorously enforced. The names and addresses of all the mela singers were recorded in the police register, kept for the purpose, and even their parents were not spared from intimidation. A blanket ban was placed against raising the slogan “Lokamanya Tilak Maharaj Ki Jai” and even “Shivaji Maharaja Ki Jai”. In short, all conceivable means were employed to stifle the movement, short only of banning the festival.

Significantly, the Government’s attitude towards the festival considerably changed after the release of Tilak from the Mandalay Jail in June 1914; it became more conciliatory. And with the announcement of the Montford Reforms in 1919, the earlier stringent festival restrictions were dropped. Although the first glorious chapter in the history of the Ganapati movement came to a close with the death of Tilak in 1920, the festival which he started to serve a national purpose, continued to be held all over, year after year, with devotion, gaiety and enthusiasm. It is a living memorial to the great Lokamanya.

Notes and References:

1.       Valentine Chirol, Indian Unrest, Macmillan, London, 1910, pp. 41-44.

2.       D. V. Athalye, The Life of Lokamanya  Tilak, “Annasaheb Chiploonkar”, Poona, 1921,p. 274.

3.       S. M. Edwardes, The Bombay City Police: A Historical Sketch, 1972-1916, OUP, London, 1923, p. 104.

4.      Speeches of Bal Gangadhar Tilak (delivered during 1889-1918). Thirumalai & Co. Madras (n.d.), p. 66.

5.      Ibid., p. 68.

6.      N. M. Goldberg, “Leader of the Democratic Wing in Maharshtra”, in I. M. Reisner and N. M. Goldberg (ed), Tilak and the Struggle for Indian Freedom, PPH, New Delhi, 1966, p. 66.

7.      Tara Chand, History of the Freedom Movement in India, GOI, Publication Division, New Delhi, 1967, Vol. II, p. 407; S. K. Bose, Bankin Chandra Chatterjee, GOI, Publication Division, New Delhi, 1974, p. 4.

8.      Bichard I. Cashman, The Myth of the Lokamanya: Tilak and Mass Politics in Maharashtra, University of California Press, Berkeley, U. S. A., 1975, p. 75.

9.      Goldberg, op. cit., p. 64.

10.  S. M. Edwardes, op. cit., p. 105.

11.  Bombay presidency Police Abstracts of Intelligence (BPPAI) year 1896, Vol. IX, p. 303, para 1268.

12.  Cited in R. C. Majumdar (ed), British Paramountcy and Indian Renaissance, part II, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1965, p. 578 (Source: Kelkar, Tilak, pp. 284-86).

13.  BPPAI, 1894, Vol. VII, p. 385, para 1576.

14.  For the official version of the incident, see Source Material for a History of the Freedom Movement in India, Vol. II, 1885-1920, Bombay, 1956, pp. 203-205.

15.  BPPAI, 1895, Vol. VIII, p. 250, para 974.

16.  BPPAI, 1895, Vol. VIII, p. 324, para 1216.

17.  BPPAI 1895, Vol. VIII, para 1218.

18.  BPPAI, 1895, Vol. VIII, p. 323, para 1213.

19.  BPPAI, 1896, Vol. IX, p. 249, para 1040.

20.  BPPAI, 1896, Vol. IX, p. 257, para 1078.

21.  BPPAI, 1896, Vol. IX, P. 303, para 1268.

22.  BPPAI, 1897, Vol. X, p. 323, para 1516.

23.  S. M. Edwardes, op. cit., p. 106.

24.  Cited by Richard I. Cashman, op. cit., 88(Source: S. M. Edwardes, Bombay Police Commissioner, to Bombay Government, B. G. Judicial, 1910, Vol. 139, p. 167). J. S. Karandikar (ed), Shri Ganeshotsavachin Satha Varshen, Ganesh Mandal, Pune, 1953, p. 29; Cashman, op. cit., p. 88. This book traces the history of the Ganapati movement through different phases of its development.

J.V. Naik

Article named ‘British View of Ganesh Festival’ in
book named "Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav Shatakachi Vatchal"