Editing Bal Gangadhar Tilak (section)

==Thoughts and views==
===Religio-Political Views===
Tilak sought to unite the Indian population for mass political action throughout his life. For this to happen, he believed there needed to be a comprehensive justification for anti-British pro-Hindu activism. For this end, he sought justification in the supposed original principles of the [[Ramayana]] and the [[Bhagavad Gita]]. He named this call to activism karma-yoga or the yoga of action.{{sfn|Harvey|1986|pp=321–331}} In his interpretation, the [[Bhagavad Gita]] reveals this principle in the conversation between Krishna and Arjuna when Krishna exhorts Arjuna to fight his enemies (which in this case included many members of his family) because it is his duty. In Tilak's opinion, the Bhagavad Gita provided a strong justification of activism. However, this conflicted with the mainstream exegesis of the text at the time which was dominated by renunciate views and the idea of acts purely for God. This was represented by the two mainstream views at the time by [[Ramanuja]] and [[Adi Shankara]]. To find support for this philosophy, Tilak wrote his own interpretations of the relevant passages of the Gita and backed his views using Jnanadeva's commentary on the Gita, Ramanuja's critical commentary and his own translation of the Gita.{{sfn|Harvey|1986|pp=322–324}} 

===Social views against women===
Tilak was strongly opposed to liberal trends emerging in Pune such as women's rights and social reforms against untouchability.{{sfn|Jaffrelot|2005|p=177}}{{sfn|P.V. Rao|2008|pp=141–148}}{{sfn|Figueira|2002|p=129}} Tilak vehemently opposed the establishment of the first Native girls High school (now called [[Huzurpaga]]) in Pune in 1885 and its curriculum using his newspapers, the Mahratta and Kesari.{{sfn|P.V. Rao|2008|pp=141–148}}{{sfn|P.V. Rao|2007|p=307}}{{sfn|Omvedt|1974|pp=201–219}} Tilak was also opposed to intercaste marriage, particularly the match where an upper caste woman married a lower caste man.{{sfn|Omvedt|1974|pp=201–219}} In the case of [[Deshastha]]s, [[Chitpawan]]s and [[Karhade]]s, he encouraged these three [[Maharashtrian Brahmin]] groups to give up "caste exclusiveness" and intermarry.{{efn|As early as 1881, in a few articles Bal Gangadhar Tilak, the resolute thinker and the enfant terrible of Indian politics, wrote comprehensive discourses on the need for united front by the Chitpavans, Deshasthas and the Karhades. Invoking the urgent necessity of this remarkable Brahmans combination, Tilak urged sincerely that these three groups of Brahmans should give up caste exclusiveness by encouraging inter sub-caste marriages and community dining."{{sfn|Gokhale|2008|p=147}}}} Tilak officially opposed the age of consent bill which raised the age of marriage from ten to twelve for girls, however he was willing to sign a circular that increased age of marriage for girls to sixteen and twenty for boys.{{sfn|Cashman|1975|pp=52–54}}

Child bride [[Rukhmabai]] was married at the age of eleven but refused to go and live with her husband. The husband sued for restitution of conjugal rights, initially lost but appealed the decision. On 4 March 1887, Justice Farran, using interpretations of Hindu laws, ordered Rukhmabai to "''go live with her husband or face six months of imprisonment''". Tilak approved of this decision of the court and said that the court was following Hindu [[Dharmaśāstra]]s. Rukhmabai responded that she would rather face imprisonment than obey the verdict. Her marriage was later dissolved by Queen Victoria. Later, she went on to receive her [[Doctor of Medicine]] degree from the [[London School of Medicine for Women]].{{sfn|Forbes|1999|p=69}}{{sfn|Lahiri|2000|p=13}}{{sfn|Chandra|1996|pp=2937–2947}}{{sfn|Rappaport|2003|p=429}}

In 1890, when an eleven-year-old Phulamani Bai died while having sexual intercourse with her much older husband, the [[Parsi]] social reformer [[Behramji Malabari]] supported the [[Age of Consent Act, 1891]] to raise the age of a girl's eligibility for marriage. Tilak opposed the  Bill and said that the [[Parsis]] as well as the English had no jurisdiction over the (Hindu) religious matters. He blamed the girl for having "defective female organs" and questioned how the husband could be "persecuted diabolically for doing a harmless act". He called the girl one of those "dangerous freaks of nature".{{sfn|Figueira|2002|p=129}} Tilak did not have a progressive view when it came to gender relations. He did not believe that Hindu women should get a modern education. Rather, he had a more conservative view, believing that women were meant to be homemakers who had to subordinate themselves to the needs of their husbands and children.{{sfn|Guha|2011|p=112}} Tilak refused to sign a petition for the abolition of untouchability in 1918, two years before his death, although he had spoken against it earlier in a meeting.{{sfn|Jaffrelot|2005|p=177}} 

The [[Jyotirao Phule|Phules]] expanded their social reform efforts by establishing additional schools in Pune specifically for girls, Shudras, and Ati-Shudras (the backward castes and Dalits, respectively). This initiative, however, sparked outrage from some upper caste Indian nationalists, notably Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Tilak voiced disapproval of schools for girls and non-Brahmins, expressing concerns that such endeavors would lead to a "loss of nationality," as they equated adherence to caste rules with national identity. Consequently, the social pressure exerted on Jyotirao's father, Govindrao, compelled him to evict Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule from their home.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-03 |title=Savitribai Phule’s 194th birth anniversary: A look at the life of India’s first woman teacher |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-culture/savitribai-phule-birth-anniversary-9758276/ |access-date=2025-05-09 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

===Esteem for Swami Vivekananda===
Tilak and [[Swami Vivekananda]] had great mutual respect and esteem for each other. They met accidentally while travelling by train in 1892 and Tilak had Vivekananda as a guest in his house. A person who was present there(Basukaka), heard that it was agreed between Vivekananda and Tilak that Tilak would work towards nationalism in the "political" arena, while Vivekananda would work for nationalism in the "religious" arena. When Vivekananda died at a young age, Tilak expressed great sorrow and paid tributes to him in the Kesari.{{efn|THE RELATIONS OF TILAK AND VIVEKANANDA The personal relations between Tilak and Swami Vivekananda (1863– 1902) were marked by great mutual regards and esteem. In 1892, Tilak was returning from Bombay to Poona and had occupied a seat in a second-class railway compartment. Some Gujaratis accompanied Swami Vivekananda who also came and sat in the same compartment. The Gujarati introduced the Swami to Tilak and requested the Swami to stay with the latter.{{sfn|Varma|Agarwa|1978|p=}}}}{{efn|93. Among the Congressmen there was one exception and that was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, whose patriotism was marked by 'sacrifice, scholastic fervour and militancy.'94 Tilak a great scholar, was also a fearless patriot, who wanted to meet the challenge of British imperialism with passive resistance and boycott of British goods. This programme came to the forefront in 1905–07, some years after the death of Swami Vivekananda. It would be useless to speculate what Swamiji would have ...{{sfn|Bhuyan|2003|p=191}}}}{{efn|Here it will not be out of place to refer to Tilak's views of Swami Vivekananda whom he did not know intimately; but Swamiji's dynamic personality and powerful exposition of the Vedantic doctrine, could not fail to impress Tilak. When Swamiji's great soul sought eternal rest on 4 July 1902, Tilak, paying his tributes to him, wrote in his Kesari: "No Hindu who has the interest of Hinduism at his heart, can help feeling grieved over Swami Vivekananda's Samadhi"{{sfn|Vedanta Kesari|1978|p=407}}}}{{efn|According to Basukaka, when Swamiji was living in Tilak's house as the latter's guest, Basukaka, who was present there, heard that it was agreed between Vivekananda and Tilak that Tilak would work for nationalism in the political field, while Vivekananda would work for nationalism in the religious field. Tilak and Vivekananda Now let us see what Tilak had himself to say about the meeting he had with Swamiji. Writing in the Vedanta Kesari (January •934), Tilak recalled the meeting.{{sfn|Yuva Bharati|1979|p=70}}}} Tilak said about Vivekananda: {{blockquote|text="No Hindu who has the interests of Hinduism at his heart, could help feeling grieved over Vivekananda's samadhi. Vivekananda, in short, had taken the work of keeping the banner of [[Advaita]] philosophy forever flying among all the nations of the world and made them realize the true greatness of Hindu religion and of the Hindu people. He had hoped that he would crown his achievement with the fulfillment of this task by virtue of his learning, eloquence, enthusiasm and sincerity, just as he had laid a secure foundation for it; but with Swami's samadhi, these hopes have gone. Thousands of years ago, another saint, Shankaracharya, who showed to the world the glory and greatness of Hinduism. At the fag of the 19th century, the second Shankaracharya is Vivekananda, who showed to the world the glory of Hinduism. His work has yet to be completed. We have lost our glory, our independence, everything."{{efn|... Vivekanand was another powerful influence in turning the thoughts of Tilak from western to eastern philosophy. No Hindu, he says, who, has the interests of Hinduism at his heart, could help to feel grieved over Vivekananda's samadhi. ...Vivekananda, in short, had taken the work of keeping the banner of Advaita philosophy forever flying among all the nations of the world and made them realize the true greatness of Hindu religion and of the Hindu people. He had hoped that he would crown his achievement with the fulfillment of this task by virtue of his learning, eloquence, enthusiasm, and sincerity, just as he had laid a secure foundation for it; but with Swami's samadhi, these hopes have gone. Thousands of years ago, another saint, Shankaracharya, showed to the world the glory and greatness of Hinduism. At the fag of the 19th century, the second Shankaracharya is Vivekananda, who, showed to the world the glory of Hinduism. His work has yet to be completed. We have lost our glory, our independence, everything.{{sfn|Bhagwat|Pradhan|2015|p=226}}}}}}

===Caste issues===
[[Shahu of Kolhapur|Shahu]], the ruler of the princely state of Kolhapur, had several conflicts with Tilak as the latter agreed with the Brahmins decision of [[Puranas|Puranic]] rituals for the [[Maratha]]s that were intended for [[Shudra]]s. Tilak even suggested that the Marathas should be "content" with the [[Shudra]] status assigned to them by the Brahmins. Tilak's newspapers, as well as the press in Kolhapur, criticized Shahu for his caste prejudice and his unreasoned hostility towards Brahmins. These included serious allegations such as sexual assaults by Shahu against four Brahmin women. An English woman named Lady Minto was petitioned to help them. The agent of Shahu had blamed these allegations on the "troublesome brahmins". Tilak and another Brahmin suffered from the confiscation of estates by Shahu, the first during a quarrel between Shahu and the [[Shankaracharya]] of Sankareshwar and later in another issue.{{efn|This connection with the British has tended to obscure an equally important significance in Shahu's exchanges with Tilak, especially in the dispute over the Vedokta, the right of Shahu's family and of other Marathas to use the Vedic rituals of the twice-born Kshatriya, rather than the puranic rituals and shudra status with which Tilak and conservative Brahman opinion held that the Marathas should be content.{{sfn|Shepperdson|Simmons|1988|p=109}}}}{{efn|The anti-durbar pressin kolhapur aligned itself with Tilak's newspapers and reproved Shahu for his caste prejudice and his unreasoned hostility towards Brahmins. To the Bombay government, and to the Vicereine herself, the Brahmins in Kolhapur presented themselves as the victims of a ruthless persecution by the Maharaja. .....Both Natu and Tilak suffered from the durbar's confiscation of estates – first during the confiscation of estates in Kolhapur – the first during a quarrel between Shahu and the Shankaracharya of Sankareshwar. S ee, for example, Samarth, 8 August 1906, quoted in I. Copland, 'The Maharaja of Kolhapur', in Modern Asian studies, vol II, no 2(April 1973), 218. In 1906, the 'poor helpless women' of Kolhapur petitioned Lady Minto alleging that four Brahmin ladies had been forcibly seduced by the Maharaja and that the Political Agent had refused to act in the matter. Broadsheets were distributed maintaining 'no beautiful woman is immune from the violence of the Maharaja...and the Brahmins being special objects of hatred no Brahmin women can hope to escape this shameful fate'...But the agent blamed everything on the troublesome brahmins.{{sfn|Johnson|2005|p=104}}}}

Bal Gangadhar Tilak was released from prison on 16 June 1914. He commented: {{blockquote|‘If we can prove to the non-Brahmins, by example, that we are wholly on their side in their demands from the Government, I am sure that in times to come their agitation, now based on social inequality, will merge into our struggle.’{{pb}}‘If a God were to tolerate untouchability, I would not recognize him as God at all.’<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Bipan Chandra |title=India's struggle for independence: 1857-1947 |last2=Mukherjee |first2=Mridula |last3=Mukherjee |first3=Aditya |last4=Panikkar |first4=Kandiyur Narayana |last5=Mahajan |first5=Sucheta |date=2016 |publisher=Penguin Books |isbn=978-0-14-010781-4 |edition=Nachdruck |location=Gurgaon|page=306}}</ref>}}