rule over Hindustan, one "Justice," who presumably was a 'Native' and whose ignorance of Marathi was therefore unpardonable, quoted this sentence in the Times of India mistranslating it to apply to the Mahomedans and Christians as well and asked whether it did not amount to an incitement to sedition against the Govenment. When Mr. Tilak drew the attenton of the leaders of Poona to the "futility of mere clamour against the high-handedness of the authorities" and suggested that the best course for the Poona leaders was to have remained in the city (Poona) and formed vigilance-committees for each street and afforded pecuniary help to the private plague hospital, the Times of India quoting the remark after the murder said "Though we do not offer any suggestions as to the view that a Jury might be persuaded to take of the Hon. Mr. Tilak's discourse on the 'futility of mere clamour' against Mr. Rand and his assistants, still some one with a pistol in his hand seems to have been in hearty agreement with the Honourable Member's distrust in the efficacy of 'mere clamour'."
The sequence of dates also was considered to be significant. On May iith 1897, Mr. Tilak published the doctrine of the "futility of mere clamour." On June 12th he supplemented it by justifying Shivaji's murder of Afzulkhan. At the same time he declared that "no copperplate has been given to the Mlenchhas (applicable equally to Mahomedans and Christians) by God to rule over India." If all these statements be put together, "do they not" said the average Anglo-Indian, "amount clearly to a plea of political murder?" Lord Sandhurst was however saner. He did not think so. That is why
